• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

Vaccine Passports - currently being considered in Scotland & Wales

Status
Not open for further replies.

Red Onion

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2012
Messages
154
Location
Aberdeen
It depends which route they go. I note that the Irish have banned all unvaccinated from various places, no exceptions.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,530
Location
Ely
I imagine that they will have a way where your GP can mark you as unable to receive the vaccine, which would show in the NHS app and effectively work as an exemption.

It opens (yet another) can of worms though, entirely unnecessarily. People may understandably not be happy having to declare a medical condition to all and sundry, and other people may not be comfortable being around such people. That's going to be like masks all over again.

What about people who have had both shots, but don't want any boosters? I know someone like that - they had a very severe reaction to their second shot and certainly don't want to go through that again. What category do they fall into?

And what if you disagree with your GPs assessment? Unfortunately GPs are not neutral here - remember that they have a financial incentive for each patient to get vaccinated. Hopefully good GPs will ignore this and do what is in the interest of their patient, but will all do so?
 

Cdd89

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
729
I absolutely oppose vaccine passports; they are very damaging and should not be introduced, especially not pre-emptively or as part of some sort of zero-Covid ideology.

But if we are about to (re-)introduce interventions (such as masks, business closures or lockdowns) - and I hope we don't, and would argue against them even in the face of pretty high case rates/hospitalisations - then I would argue that vaccine passports must come before those. I would note that many of the MPs listed in post #9 strongly support those interventions.
 

davews

Member
Joined
24 Apr 2021
Messages
211
Location
Bracknell
There are several aspects:
The vaccine is to protect the one vaccinated, it doesn't stop that person catching it or passing it on (yes, they say the spread may be less). Fundamental reason for a 'passport' to show you are a nice person is flawed logic.
Whether vaccinated or not, the infrastructure to enforce it is unacceptable. One thing to just say 'yes, I am vaccinated', to have to prove it via some sort of digital link is intrusive and may need hardware on the premises.

Covid is now not that much different from any other respiratory virus, are we going to have passports for every variety of common cold?

Do you really want to have your church or corner shop with a turnstile at the door that will only open when presented with a valid document, mandatory for the premises to operate?
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,530
Location
Ely
Do you really want to have your church or corner shop with a turnstile at the door that will only open when presented with a valid document, mandatory for the premises to operate?

One could suggest that the masks, the mandatory track and trace, capacity limits, and shop traffic lights, were all somewhat of a trial run to get us accustomed to seeking permission to enter places we previously could enter freely, and test how compliant we would be with such things.

Well, at least I would, because I've been arguing along those lines on here and elsewhere for almost a year now, such as here last September:

I don’t think the [track and trace] app itself is necessarily the issue - what it does currently is fairly benign - but it is conditioning us to a behaviour of getting permission to enter places, where previously we would be expected to be able to enter freely unless there was a good reason not to.

The logical next step will be for the app (this one or another) to show whether we are *allowed* into places, based on whether we’ve passed a test recently and/or been vaccinated.
 

Annetts key

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
544
Location
West is best
Somebody on another thread said they went to London City Airport and temperature checks were in use, presumably via one of those hand-held scanners. Though not infallible, surely if we want to prevent potentially infected individuals from entering a venue, these would be a more logical, efficient and quick way to minimise risk?
We have one of those hand-held scanners at our work place. You get a different reading every time you get it to take your temperature. So it’s hard to tell how reliable they are. Also everyone has a slightly different reaction to viruses. An elevated body temperature indicates that your body is trying to fight an infection. But whether your body temperature does rise, and by how much, varies between each individual…
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
1,861
Location
Surrey
I absolutely oppose vaccine passports; they are very damaging and should not be introduced, especially not pre-emptively or as part of some sort of zero-Covid ideology.

But if we are about to (re-)introduce interventions (such as masks, business closures or lockdowns) - and I hope we don't, and would argue against them even in the face of pretty high case rates/hospitalisations - then I would argue that vaccine passports must come before those. I would note that many of the MPs listed in post #9 strongly support those interventions.
Unlikely with cases down to lowest in over a month but hospitalisations are still going up so we aren't on a home run just yet.

The problem we have here is govt as usual as sold its soul to the vaccine programme being best in the world and all that buzzy stuff that BoJo loves and we are now in danger of being rapidly relegated down the table as the EU drive for the line. So govt are running out all these leaks to try and dial up the numbers but its not happening on the sub 30 age group so govt need a plan B as parliament will, rightly, reject vaccine passports.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,572
Ultimately I expect socialisation permits to be a standard feature of our society moving forward and to be required for almost all activities.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
2,668
I don't think it's nutcase territory at all.

It's already the case now that visiting a heritage railway in some cases requires pre-booking (via a bank card), turning up at a specific time, being allocated a specific seat, being told to do certain things such as wearing a mask, and not to mention having the compartment wiped down afterwards to remove one's filthy germs to make it "clean" for everyone else.

I for one don't wish to live like this, and if we're not careful this is exactly how some things are going to go, as there's people who seem to love all this.

We shouldn't just dismiss this as nutcase territory, as elements of it could very easily happen if we sleepwalk our way there.
I have no interest in going to a heritage railway whilst this persists. The two best lines are about 90 minutes drive away. I tend to stay out all day and cover every loco. I'll probably stop off for lunch and a pint somewhere. Also I like to sit close to the loco so pre assigned seats are of no interest to me unless I get to pick the seat. If heritage railways can turn a profit with pre bookings only then good luck to them. I have plenty of other things to do.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,371
Vaxx passports to attend university….never have I hated a government more than this one, the Commuservatives should be the name of this party
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
997
Vaxx passports to attend university….never have I hated a government more than this one, the Commuservatives should be the name of this party
If this gets through any vote, the most likely downfall of vaccine passports will be the government's inability to organise them efficiently.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,371
If this gets through any vote, the most likely downfall of vaccine passports will be the government's inability to organise them efficiently.

I hope that’s the case, I do feel
That the idea of domestic vaccine passports has irked a lot of people and and there does seem to be a weighty opposition against them, but I’m still worried that somehow this regime (I’m not calling them a government anymore because this crop of Tories are authoritarians) will find a way to pass them through.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
396
For anyone who might be, or thinking about, heading overseas this Summer this is a handy summary of the Vaccine Passports across Europe.


It is quite scary the scope of some of these across the Continent - makes our plan to only target people who go clubbing to be relatively tame by comparison.
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,779
It is quite scary the scope of some of these across the Continent - makes our plan to only target people who go clubbing to be relatively tame by comparison.
That isn't what's planned at all. The government has already mentioned night clubs "and other crowded indoor spaces such as pubs and restaurants" and on Sunday they were reported to have been in negotiation with the English Premier League about adopting such a scheme for entry to football matches. No doubt shops, supermarkets, public transport and hospitals will be next.

The whole concept is disgusting.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
396
That isn't what's planned at all. The government has already mentioned night clubs "and other crowded indoor spaces such as pubs and restaurants" and on Sunday they were reported to have been in negotiation with the English Premier League about adopting such a scheme for entry to football matches. No doubt shops, supermarkets, public transport and hospitals will be next.

The whole concept is disgusting.

True - And I agree the whole idea is abhorrent.

But at least we aren't , yet, facing have to prove status to enter a Cafe / check-in to a hotel.

It is fascinating how quickly an idea that once off-limits spreads like wildfire - It is the same as we saw with masks last year.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
2,987
Location
Maidstone
Vaxx passports to attend university….never have I hated a government more than this one, the Commuservatives should be the name of this party
If there's a Guinness world record for "greatest movement along the political spectrum performed by a Government", the current one wins it, having basically gone from far right to far left on certain issues.

I also saw on Twitter a prominent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn ask a question as to why vaccine passports are bad in a tweet, and while I don't recall any replies on this line, the amount the guy in question has supported Corbyn made me surprised he supported the passports idea, because I'd have thought he'd take everything Corbyn believes in as Gospel, including Corbyn's opposition to them.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,341
That isn't what's planned at all. The government has already mentioned night clubs "and other crowded indoor spaces such as pubs and restaurants" and on Sunday they were reported to have been in negotiation with the English Premier League about adopting such a scheme for entry to football matches. No doubt shops, supermarkets, public transport and hospitals will be next.

The whole concept is disgusting.
That is dodgy, this needs to be squashed pronto. Also, how does it work at somewhere like St James' Park, Newcastle, where there is a major thoroughfare (Strawberry place) immediately past the stadium.

Also, the whole concept of the so-called greater good is from the moral failure that is utilitarianism (in practice).
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,907
People sue on discrimination grounds as a result and no one wants to be seen as that, what the government is proposing goes against the Nuremberg code, plus I think people would crowdfund on venues being sued at this point.
The Nuremberg Code does not have legal force and has been replaced by other codes of medical ethics. It is also about the conduct of medical experiments - not medical treatment.

The use of the reference (and especially Shemirani's vile speechrant at the weekend) is a deliberate piece of dog whistle rhetoric to try to create a mental link between vaccines and Nazi concentration camp experiment.

As for discrimination, to the best of my understanding the government's policies provide exemption for those with medical reasons why they can't be vaccinated.
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,341
The Nuremberg Code does not have legal force and has been replaced by other codes of medical ethics. It is also about the conduct of medical experiments - not medical treatment.

The use of the reference (and especially Shemirani's vile speechrant at the weekend) is a deliberate piece of dog whistle rhetoric to try to create a mental link between vaccines and Nazi concentration camp experiment.

As for discrimination, to the best of my understanding the government's policies provide exemption for those with medical reasons why they can't be vaccinated.

The only guaranteed immunity relating to a vaccine is legal immunity for the company that produces it.

Oh and sorry if you do not like it, but the link is valid. You can ask people nicely but if they decline then it is time to turn a blind eye. The Bentham-ite "greatest happiness" doctrine is immoral in practice when it involves asking people to take risks that they would not otherwise do.

Also, without a direct act of parliament, there are other laws that could work against a vaccine passport than disability (data protection and harassment).

P.S. (Afterthought): No medical treatment will ever be completely risk free, nor does it cease to be completely experimental.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,907
The only guaranteed immunity relating to a vaccine is legal immunity for the company that produces it.

Oh and sorry if you do not like it, but the link is valid. You can ask people nicely but if they decline then it is time to turn a blind eye. The Bentham-ite "greatest happiness" doctrine is immoral in practice when it involves asking people to take risks that they would not otherwise do.

Also, without a direct act of parliament, there are other laws that could work against a vaccine passport than disability (data protection and harassment).

P.S. (Afterthought): No medical treatment will ever be completely risk free, nor does it cease to be completely experimental.
I've no problems with arguments about whether or not vaccines should be compulsory; it's a matter that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on. I actually agree with you that, if they are to be compelled, it should be through primary legislation and not backdoor procedural moves. Similarly, I'd agree with you that any use of medicines carries a level of risk - which is why informed consent is an important principle - and that doctors can rarely if ever be certain of the outcomes of following a particular protocol. I would suggest though that this goes well beyond the "experimental" stage, and is a recognition that humans are complex organisms, and the reactions to treatment can be similarly complex.

My comment on the reference to the Nuremberg Code is that the references to experimental medical ethics are being abused in a deliberate attempt to create a mental link between the evils of Nazism and the use of vaccines now, one which goes well beyond Godwin's Law. It is false and should not be given oxygen.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,530
Location
Ely
Just a reminder of the definition of informed consent, as set out by the NHS:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/
Consent to treatment means a person must give permission before they receive any type of medical treatment, test or examination.

For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.

The meaning of these terms are:
  • voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family
  • informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead
  • capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision

It doesn't explicitly mention 'coersion by the government' - presumably because no-one would have ever expected we'd get to the stage where we have open coersion by the government for people to take medical treatments that they don't need - but the intent is clearly there.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,907
Just a reminder of the definition of informed consent, as set out by the NHS:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/


It doesn't explicitly mention 'coersion by the government' - presumably because no-one would have ever expected we'd get to the stage where we have open coersion by the government for people to take medical treatments that they don't need - but the intent is clearly there.
Where Covid vaccines are concerned, I'd suggest that a government lawyer might argue that consent to a vaccination is informed because the person refusing is aware that if they do not accept the vaccination, those are the consequences. I think that interpretation would fly by the letter of the law, but not the spirit.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,371
The Nuremberg Code does not have legal force and has been replaced by other codes of medical ethics. It is also about the conduct of medical experiments - not medical treatment.

The use of the reference (and especially Shemirani's vile speechrant at the weekend) is a deliberate piece of dog whistle rhetoric to try to create a mental link between vaccines and Nazi concentration camp experiment.

As for discrimination, to the best of my understanding the government's policies provide exemption for those with medical reasons why they can't be vaccinated.

Sorry but to force a person to take a medical procedure or lose your freedoms is coercion and is against the and against human rights and against freedom of choice, the Nuremberg code is extremely relevant I feel considering Western governments are actually proposing curtailing people’s freedoms!
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,907
Sorry but to force a person to take a medical procedure or lose your freedoms is coercion and is against the and against human rights and against freedom of choice, the Nuremberg code is extremely relevant I feel considering Western governments are actually proposing curtailing people’s freedoms!
And as I have said a number of times, a variety of courts in a variety of jurisdictions have found that such compulsion is permissible under human rights law. Unless you are going to try to argue that Vallance and Whitty are equivalent to the defendants at the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg, and the vaccines equivalent to the atrocities for which those defendants were tried, then the comparison is, being charitable, false.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
13,569
Location
No longer here
And as I have said a number of times, a variety of courts in a variety of jurisdictions have found that such compulsion is permissible under human rights law. Unless you are going to try to argue that Vallance and Whitty are equivalent to the defendants at the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg, and the vaccines equivalent to the atrocities for which those defendants were tried, then the comparison is, being charitable, false.
Quite.

Returning to the topic at hand, it seems there are some limited settings the government wants to introduce vaccine passports into. The idea that you have if you go to the football, an outdoor event with unparalleled ventilation, and provide proof of vaccination (or a bloody test!!) is nonsense. It's also not clear why if I go to a match with 19,000 people at it I wouldn't need the same testing or vaccine proof as if I went somewhere with 20,500 people. Why 20,000?

I tend to agree we will probably have a decentralised social credit system within my lifetime which will not look like China's but will still have negative consequences.
 

Annetts key

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
544
Location
West is best
I’m not sure that being denied entry to a private nightclub, or other large private venue would be considered by a court as an individual being denied their freedom. You can already be denied entry if the operators or owners have reasonable grounds. Regardless of your opinion on what reasonable grounds is.

Please note, the above text does not mean that I agree or disagree with the proposed policy. I’m just making a point.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,371
I’m not sure that being denied entry to a private nightclub, or other large private venue would be considered by a court as an individual being denied their freedom. You can already be denied entry if the operators or owners have reasonable grounds. Regardless of your opinion on what reasonable grounds is.

Please note, the above text does not mean that I agree or disagree with the proposed policy. I’m just making a point.

But it’s coercion and blackmail though, which I’m sure you’ll agree with me on
 

MDB1images

Member
Joined
9 Jun 2018
Messages
550
Probably best to mail your MP(regardless of party)to express your protest/concern.
They are your voice in this in Wrstminster, I'd say if you've never contacted your MP then this abhorrent plan is a good time to start.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,907
But it’s coercion and blackmail though, which I’m sure you’ll agree with me on
Reaching to the shelf, my copy of the Shorter OED (4th edition, 1993) has the following definitions (italicised comments about age of definition and pronunciation removed, otherwise entire definitions given):
Blackmail -
Originally two words A 1a A tribute levied by freebooting Scottish chiefs in return for protection or immunity from plunder. b Any payment or other benefit extorted by threats or pressure, esp. by threatening to reveal a discreditable secret; the criminal action of seeking to extort such a payment or benefit; the use of threats or moral pressure. 2 Rent payable in cattle, labour, or coin other than silver. B Extort money from by blackmail, use threats or moral pressure against.
Coercion -
1 Constraint, restraint, compulsion; the controlling of a voluntary agent by force. 2 The faculty or power of coercing or punishing; the power to compel assent. 3 Government by force; the employment of force to suppress political disaffection and disorder. 4 Physical pressure; compression.
Beyond the truism that anything a government mandates by force of law could be said to be coercive, I'm struggling to apply either definition to what's proposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top