Vaccine Passports - currently being considered in Scotland & Wales

[NorthKent1989]

Sadly there’s no real party opposition to be a viable alternative, because the Tories need to be binned come 2024, will never vote for them again.

And to those who support vaccine passports, don’t be so sure you’ll be on the top tier fo society for long, pretty soon you’ll miss a booster and miss out on life.

I actually hope that people will continue marching and not comply with this ridiculous passport

 

[MikeWM]

It appears the intent in Scotland is to issue 'vaccine passports' under Schedule 22 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allows the government to set conditions on premises/events/etc. and who may access them - which therefore would require no specific vote, either for their introduction or for any extension to further locations later. Hurray for democracy!

I suspect we'll therefore see England do the same.

That would appear to at least partly explain why that Act is going to be renewed again by Parliament in the next week or two.

On the very-slightly-positive side, that does mean that the maximum amount of time they could be in force *via this mechanism* would be about a year (six months after the expiry of the Act in March 2022 - see section 90(2) and (3), which allows for parts of the Act to live on for up to six months *after* it expires).

In less positive news, as I suspected, the SNP support the government plans. In the House of Commons today, in the middle of a long and tedious rant about how the Conservatives should be wearing masks in the Commons chamber , Pete Wishart said 'Yesterday, this House quite rightly said that there would be covid vaccine passports for nightclubs in England.' (bold mine). There will be no help here from the SNP, alas, at either end of the country.

 

[Domh245]

In less positive news, as I suspected, the SNP support the government plans. In the House of Commons today, in the middle of a long and tedious rant about how the Conservatives should be wearing masks in the Commons chamber , Pete Wishart said 'Yesterday, this House quite rightly said that there would be covid vaccine passports for nightclubs in England.' (bold mine). There will be no help here from the SNP, alas, at either end of the country.

It'll be beyond disappointing if English DVPs are introduced on the basis of Scottish MPs voting for them.

 

[initiation]

It will be temporary. Just like Income Tax, introduced in 1842 was temporary...

This is one of the main reasons why I have gone from being vaguely supportive (or at least understanding) of the first lockdown to having a view that any such measures should never have been allowed to happen; because once it started, the flood of authoritarian measures is hard to stop.

I think this is a weak argument. There’s no reason why the test cannot be supervised (in the endless “community test centres” currently doing nothing, or via video call) if fraud is supposedly such a huge issue.

The argument about LFTs/PCRs/vaccination status is missing the real point - why do we need to continue being obsessed about whether someone is infected with an illness that >99%+ of vulnerable people have been vaccinated for for and practically never harms those young and unvaccinated. The people who say that despite the vaccines we need to continue with the whole charade are the real anti-vaxxers.


I will not comply with vaccine passports for as long as I reasonably can. I don't often go nightclubbing now but it is the next step which is worrying - hospitality, leisure etc.... If it means I can't do that then so be it.


--


We are told that a key reason for vaccine passports is selfish youngsters not getting vaccinated.

PHE report shows that currently 96.3% of 17-29 year olds show seropositivity (antibodies).
How much higher does it need to get!?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016312/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

 

[DelayRepay]

There was an urgent question on this subject yesterday in the House of Commons, which can be read here if you have a strong stomach for such things.

- They rule out any requirement for use for 'essential services'. ('I can assure her that some essential services will not require people to show covid vaccine certification. They include settings that have stayed open throughout the pandemic, such as public sector buildings, essential retail, essential services and, of course, public transport.')

Whether you believe that or not probably depends on whether you believe anything else they've said recently. The track record on that isn't so great!

Mike, I am sorry to say I have noticed an important word in the text I have quoted, which you may have missed. The word is 'some', which I have highlighted.

My reading is, therefore, that some essential services won't need passports, but some may. Make of this what you will. Perhaps the unvaccinated people will be restricted to a certain supermarket or have to do their shopping on a certain day? Such a rule sounds ridiculous, but...

 

[MikeWM]

Mike, I am sorry to say I have noticed an important word in the text I have quoted, which you may have missed. The word is 'some', which I have highlighted.

My reading is, therefore, that some essential services won't need passports, but some may. Make of this what you will. Perhaps the unvaccinated people will be restricted to a certain supermarket or have to do their shopping on a certain day? Such a rule sounds ridiculous, but...

Ridiculous indeed - but nothing much would surprise me anymore.

To be clear, my bold was what they are currenty *saying* will happen. As I don't believe a word they say anymore, I don't view that as especially binding. However, I'd bet that the scope will be at least as much as they are saying, and probably considerably more, so pointing out their supposed current position still seems to have some use.

 

[DelayRepay]

And to those who support vaccine passports, don’t be so sure you’ll be on the top tier fo society for long, pretty soon you’ll miss a booster and miss out on life.

I am vaccinated but I don't support passports.

My fear is not that I'll miss a booster or anything like that. My fear is that this sets a precedent and I worry about what comes next. It would be quite easy to add a requirement for a flu jab to the existing passport. Then it would be easy to start to restrict our privacy and freedom in other ways. Although voter ID is off topic and being discussed in another thread, I can see connectivity. And I worry where we're heading here.

Ridiculous indeed - but nothing much would surprise me anymore.

To be clear, my bold was what they are currenty *saying* will happen. As I don't believe a word they say anymore, I don't view that as especially binding. However, I'd bet that the scope will be at least as much as they are saying, and probably considerably more, so pointing out their supposed current position still seems to have some use.

I understand your bold but I was pointing out that actually their current position is worse than your bold. You said 'they rule out any requirement for use for 'essential services but he said I can assure her that some essential services...

My suspicion is that they will increase the use of vaccine passports as we progress through the winter, if the case/hospital numbers rise. Whereas last year the restrictions were by region under the 'Tier' system, this year I think they will restrict by vaccine status. So these passports will start off being for nightclubs and probably other places where large numbers gather such as cinemas and theatres, then be extended to pubs and other hospitality, then to non-essential retail and so on. 9pm curfew for the unvaccinated?

 

[GodAtum]

I think a lot of people get confused by my opinion. One can be vaccinated but be against face-masks and vaccine passports. I know a lot of people with that view are anti-vaxxers too, but it's not mutually exclusive.

 

[MikeWM]

I am vaccinated but I don't support passports.

My fear is not that I'll miss a booster or anything like that. My fear is that this sets a precedent and I worry about what comes next. It would be quite easy to add a requirement for a flu jab to the existing passport. Then it would be easy to start to restrict our privacy and freedom in other ways. Although voter ID is off topic and being discussed in another thread, I can see connectivity. And I worry where we're heading here.

Exactly so - vaccination, and vaccination passports, should be viewed as entirely separate things. The fact that I'm not vaccinated is unrelated to my opposition to passports (I was equally just as strongly opposed to Blair's ID cards, even though I would obviously have 'qualified' for one of those), and I'd hope that everyone, vaccinated or otherwise, will oppose this.

I understand your bold but I was pointing out that actually their current position is worse than your bold. You said 'they rule out any requirement for use for 'essential services but he said I can assure her that some essential services...

My suspicion is that they will increase the use of vaccine passports as we progress through the winter, if the case/hospital numbers rise. Whereas last year the restrictions were by region under the 'Tier' system, this year I think they will restrict by vaccine status. So these passports will start off being for nightclubs and probably other places where large numbers gather such as cinemas and theatres, then be extended to pubs and other hospitality, then to non-essential retail and so on. 9pm curfew for the unvaccinated?

Oh, I agree and fully expect much or all of that to occur. That's why I said elsewhere in that post:

Note also that there are a large category of things that they *aren't* therefore ruling out. I'd therefore expect this to be extended at the least to pretty much everything not on that list, and quite possibly some things on it too, by November or so.

 

[kristiang85]

It appears the intent in Scotland is to issue 'vaccine passports' under Schedule 22 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allows the government to set conditions on premises/events/etc. and who may access them - which therefore would require no specific vote, either for their introduction or for any extension to further locations later. Hurray for democracy!

I suspect we'll therefore see England do the same.

That would appear to at least partly explain why that Act is going to be renewed again by Parliament in the next week or two.

On the very-slightly-positive side, that does mean that the maximum amount of time they could be in force *via this mechanism* would be about a year (six months after the expiry of the Act in March 2022 - see section 90(2) and (3), which allows for parts of the Act to live on for up to six months *after* it expires).

In less positive news, as I suspected, the SNP support the government plans. In the House of Commons today, in the middle of a long and tedious rant about how the Conservatives should be wearing masks in the Commons chamber , Pete Wishart said 'Yesterday, this House quite rightly said that there would be covid vaccine passports for nightclubs in England.' (bold mine). There will be no help here from the SNP, alas, at either end of the country.

It is quite disgraceful that the Coronavirus Act is an emergency piece of legislation, and should only be in place in emergencies, yet it is a given that it will be renewed.

There is absolutely nothing about the situation now that screams 'emergency'.

And the SNP should blooming well abstain from any Westminster vote on English passports, but you just know they won't and they will have to vote Aye given what they've done in Scotland.

One can be vaccinated but be against face-masks and vaccine passports.

This this this, a million times.

On social media espeically, the debate is so binary. If you question COVID restrictions, you must be a COVId denier or antivaxxer. That is so utterly wrong.

(Your stance is the same as mine).

 

[MikeWM]

And the SNP should blooming well abstain from any Westminster vote on English passports, but you just know they won't and they will have to vote Aye given what they've done in Scotland.

However, even if they abstain, this will go through. There aren't enough Tory rebels for the numbers to work. It doesn't really matter what Labour decide, that's a bit of a red herring in the end (though it would be nice if they could get around to at least having an opinion on probably the most important domestic issue in decades).

 

[Bikeman78]

So these passports will start off being for nightclubs and probably other places where large numbers gather such as cinemas and theatres, then be extended to pubs and other hospitality, then to non-essential retail and so on.

I can see "non essential" shops kicking off about that as it will hand over business to supermarkets which sell a wide range of items. Either that or the non essential shops will sell a few essential items rendering the whole thing even more pointless.

 

[takno]

It appears the intent in Scotland is to issue 'vaccine passports' under Schedule 22 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allows the government to set conditions on premises/events/etc. and who may access them - which therefore would require no specific vote, either for their introduction or for any extension to further locations later. Hurray for democracy!

I suspect we'll therefore see England do the same.

That would appear to at least partly explain why that Act is going to be renewed again by Parliament in the next week or two.

On the very-slightly-positive side, that does mean that the maximum amount of time they could be in force *via this mechanism* would be about a year (six months after the expiry of the Act in March 2022 - see section 90(2) and (3), which allows for parts of the Act to live on for up to six months *after* it expires).

In less positive news, as I suspected, the SNP support the government plans. In the House of Commons today, in the middle of a long and tedious rant about how the Conservatives should be wearing masks in the Commons chamber , Pete Wishart said 'Yesterday, this House quite rightly said that there would be covid vaccine passports for nightclubs in England.' (bold mine). There will be no help here from the SNP, alas, at either end of the country.

There was a Holyrood vote on it, but now the Greens have been purchased it was an easy win for the SNP-Opportunist alliance, with all other parties voting against

 

[DelayRepay]

I can see "non essential" shops kicking off about that as it will hand over business to supermarkets which sell a wide range of items. Either that or the non essential shops will sell a few essential items rendering the whole thing even more pointless.

As can I, a bit like at the start of Lockdown 1 when Sports Direct tried to stay open on the basis that exercise equipment was essential. But it won't stop the government trying it... especially if the message becomes 'comply, or we'll close you completely'.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I can see "non essential" shops kicking off about that as it will hand over business to supermarkets which sell a wide range of items. Either that or the non essential shops will sell a few essential items rendering the whole thing even more pointless.

As can I, a bit like at the start of Lockdown 1 when Sports Direct tried to stay open on the basis that exercise equipment was essential. But it won't stop the government trying it... especially if the message becomes 'comply, or we'll close you completely'.

This would represent a great opportunity for the 'essential retailers' to increase their share of the market by adding more non-essential ranges. Time for Tesco Direct to make a comeback, as per Argos within Sainsbury's? An Amazon collection point in every Morrisons?

But the 'powers that be' could go down the Welsh route by making essential retailers cover up / cordon off non-essential areas of their shops unless covid passport control was in operation. "Sorry mate, you can't take a shortcut through the DVD's to get to the pharmacy counter, you'll have to go via frozen and through bakery. It's for everyone's safety innit". That would have been tin-foil hat stuff in February 2020. Now it doesn't seem all that far fetched.

The unvaccinated will be permitted, under Regulation 101, to enter the following specified essential retailers only [schedule a], and only on the following days [insert frequency from once daily to once monthly according to current level of Covid cases locally], and only between the following hours [insert hours from one to 24 according the the level of Covid cases locally]. They must only remain in the premises for the purpose of essential retail shopping and must conduct such activity in a purposeful manner. Dawdling, browsing, chatting, dithering over the reduced for a quick-sale counter is strictly forbidden. Unvaccinated persons must, prior to entry, identify themselves to Covid Passport Control Marshalls who will issue them with a time limited entry permit, a yellow tabbard and a bell. Such tabbard to be worn at all times and such bell to be rung every 30 seconds accompanied by the words "unclean, unclean, coming through, unclean, unclean'. Failure to comply with any of the modest burdens imposed by these regretalble but necessary for the comfort of others regulations is punishable by a £1,000 on the spot penalty.

 

[HSTEd]

It would not be "unvaccinated", it would be "those persons not in possession of a socialisation permit"

 

[DustyBin]

The argument about LFTs/PCRs/vaccination status is missing the real point - why do we need to continue being obsessed about whether someone is infected with an illness that >99%+ of vulnerable people have been vaccinated for for and practically never harms those young and unvaccinated. The people who say that despite the vaccines we need to continue with the whole charade are the real anti-vaxxers.

A very good question.

Are we in a state of “perpetual war”? I think it’s quite possible that we are; people seem to have forgotten what it is we’re dealing with and what we’re trying to achieve. Covid has become an omnipresent threat around which our lives revolve, the fact it isn’t actually that much of a threat doesn’t seem to matter any more. It really is very Nineteen Eighty-Four….

Incidentally, what is the current CFR? I believe it was (roughly) 1% pre-vaccines but it should be less than that now; I suspect the powers at be don’t really want to publicise it however!

 

[takno]

Incidentally, what is the current IFR? I believe it was (roughly) 1% pre-vaccines but it should be less than that now; I suspect the powers at be don’t really want to publicise it however!

The CFR might have been that high. I don't think the IFR was that high, even in the UK

 

[DustyBin]

The CFR might have been that high. I don't think the IFR was that high, even in the UK

Apologies you’re correct, it’s CFR I’m thinking of (original post edited).

 

[duncanp]

Some papers today are reporting that ministers are "warning" that vaccine passports "could" be required to go to the pub.

I think the government would have to think very carefully about introducing vaccine passports for routine everyday activities such as going for a coffee, going to the pub, attending a leisure centre or swimming pool, or going to a place of worship.

For one thing - how would the measure be enforced? Yes, you could be forced to show your vaccine passport (with the QR code) on entry to these establishments, but are you then supposed to carry photo ID with you to prove that you are the person on the vaccine passport? What if you are a regular at a pub or place of worship? Do you need to bring the vaccine passport with you every time, or just once? Will the police be doing a raid on a pub to check that everyone has the requisite documentation? Are the police going to raid a church on Sunday morning and force someone to leave if they left their passport at home?

It predict it will be rather like face coverings on the London Underground. Once people realise that there is little or no enforcement, they won't bother.


.

 

[Annetts key]

The unvaccinated will be permitted, under Regulation 101, to enter the following specified essential retailers only [schedule a], and only on the following days [insert frequency from once daily to once monthly according to current level of Covid cases locally], and only between the following hours [insert hours from one to 24 according the the level of Covid cases locally]. They must only remain in the premises for the purpose of essential retail shopping and must conduct such activity in a purposeful manner. Dawdling, browsing, chatting, dithering over the reduced for a quick-sale counter is strictly forbidden. Unvaccinated persons must, prior to entry, identify themselves to Covid Passport Control Marshalls who will issue them with a time limited entry permit, a yellow tabbard and a bell. Such tabbard to be worn at all times and such bell to be rung every 30 seconds accompanied by the words "unclean, unclean, coming through, unclean, unclean'. Failure to comply with any of the modest burdens imposed by these regretalble but necessary for the comfort of others regulations is punishable by a £1,000 on the spot penalty.

Thanks, I’ll immediately forward this to Boris for you

 

[NoOnesFool]

This has gotten a lot of people riled up and rightfully so, nightclub and pub landlords want to take this court and to be honest I don’t see many venues enforcing this ridiculous, irrational passport, pubs and nightclubs want to survive and not shoot themselves in the foot.

You never needed a vaccine passport before for anything, why now? One has to wonder if this is even about a virus anymore.

It was never about a virus. They have never been able to prove Sars-Cov2 exists. It's about control and tyranny. We need to oppose and say NO to 'vaccine' passports. It opens up a can of worms for other situations and is an infringement on our liberty, and as someone else said, it is a breach of the Nuremberg Code. Saying to people "if you don't have a vaccine, you can't go here or you can't do this" is coercion. It's wrong. A law was passed in 2015 criminalising coercive behaviour, so how can this be allowed. Forcing people to wear a mask over their face is wrong, it's disgusting. Employers making staff take 'flow' tests in order to come to work is wrong and disgusting. We all need to say NO to all of this. I am unvaccinated, unmasked and unafraid.

 

[35B]

It was never about a virus. They have never been able to prove Sars-Cov2 exists. It's about control and tyranny. We need to oppose and say NO to 'vaccine' passports. It opens up a can of worms for other situations and is an infringement on our liberty, and as someone else said, it is a breach of the Nuremberg Code. Saying to people "if you don't have a vaccine, you can't go here or you can't do this" is coercion. It's wrong. A law was passed in 2015 criminalising coercive behaviour, so how can this be allowed. Forcing people to wear a mask over their face is wrong, it's disgusting. Employers making staff take 'flow' tests in order to come to work is wrong and disgusting. We all need to say NO to all of this. I am unvaccinated, unmasked and unafraid.

And extremely misinformed. On the specific points of fact you allege:

• UK government policy has been in reaction to the impact of Covid
• Sars-Cov-2 has been proven and identified
• the Nuremberg code is about medical experimentation, not treatment
• Vaccine passports have nothing to do with the Nuremberg code
• the 2015 legislation was about controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship
• government has plenty of powers to coerce us to do - or not do - things; that's what law is and how it works.

Fortunately, living in a liberal democracy, you are at liberty to assert falsehoods like these - as others are equally at liberty to repudiate them.

 

[NorthKent1989]

And extremely misinformed. On the specific points of fact you allege:

• UK government policy has been in reaction to the impact of Covid
• Sars-Cov-2 has been proven and identified
• the Nuremberg code is about medical experimentation, not treatment
• Vaccine passports have nothing to do with the Nuremberg code
• the 2015 legislation was about controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship
• government has plenty of powers to coerce us to do - or not do - things; that's what law is and how it works.

Fortunately, living in a liberal democracy, you are at liberty to assert falsehoods like these - as others are equally at liberty to repudiate them.

You really think we still live in a liberal democracy? Oh how naive you are

 

[nedchester]

It was never about a virus. They have never been able to prove Sars-Cov2 exists. It's about control and tyranny. We need to oppose and say NO to 'vaccine' passports. It opens up a can of worms for other situations and is an infringement on our liberty, and as someone else said, it is a breach of the Nuremberg Code. Saying to people "if you don't have a vaccine, you can't go here or you can't do this" is coercion. It's wrong. A law was passed in 2015 criminalising coercive behaviour, so how can this be allowed. Forcing people to wear a mask over their face is wrong, it's disgusting. Employers making staff take 'flow' tests in order to come to work is wrong and disgusting. We all need to say NO to all of this. I am unvaccinated, unmasked and unafraid.

Do they still sell tin hats where you live?

 

[NorthKent1989]

Do they still sell tin hats where you live?

Vaccine passports were once a conspiracy not so long ago, people were called tin hat wearers for saying such things would happen, I call them spoiler alerts……..

 

[35B]

You really think we still live in a liberal democracy? Oh how naive you are

Perhaps. But I suggest you try the thought experiment of living somewhere that isn't to test the comparison.

A clue - you aren't awaiting a knock at the door for daring to post what you genuinely believe on an internet forum.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Perhaps. But I suggest you try the thought experiment of living somewhere that isn't to test the comparison.

A clue - you aren't awaiting a knock at the door for daring to post what you genuinely believe on an internet forum.

No but we’re nearer to that than where we were just a few years ago, have you not looked at the recent police bill? The government are literally trying to take away our right to protest and free speech, vaccine passports are the first step toward that dystopian future, but I don’t think you really care so it’s not point explaining this to you

 

[jumble]

Some papers today are reporting that ministers are "warning" that vaccine passports "could" be required to go to the pub.

I think the government would have to think very carefully about introducing vaccine passports for routine everyday activities such as going for a coffee, going to the pub, attending a leisure centre or swimming pool, or going to a place of worship.

For one thing - how would the measure be enforced? Yes, you could be forced to show your vaccine passport (with the QR code) on entry to these establishments, but are you then supposed to carry photo ID with you to prove that you are the person on the vaccine passport? What if you are a regular at a pub or place of worship? Do you need to bring the vaccine passport with you every time, or just once? Will the police be doing a raid on a pub to check that everyone has the requisite documentation? Are the police going to raid a church on Sunday morning and force someone to leave if they left their passport at home?

It predict it will be rather like face coverings on the London Underground. Once people realise that there is little or no enforcement, they won't bother.


.

Rail staff 'threatened with being spat on' by passengers refusing to wear face m

Tensions are rising over masks on public transport as passengers and staff claim the number wearing them is falling amid confusion over rules.

metro.co.uk

TfL estimates 82% of customers use masks ‘at all times

Who ever wrote this does not travel on the same trains that I do

 

[MikeWM]

No but we’re nearer to that than where we were just a few years ago, have you not looked at the recent police bill? The government are literally trying to take away our right to protest and free speech, vaccine passports are the first step toward that dystopian future, but I don’t think you really care so it’s not point explaining this to you

Also of course in most cases there are no particular consequences to exercising your right to free speech *at the moment* (though still better to be a little careful what you post in case someone trawls through your twitter feed 10 years from now and decides you thought something inappropriate, which increasingly seems to be happening...)

That can all change once we have social credit passports, where saying the wrong thing or going to a protest may result in your travel 'privileges' being removed, or be blocked from buying 'luxuries' for the next month, or worse. What a fun world we're tumbling into.