• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Vaccine Passports - currently being considered in Scotland & Wales

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
It is quite clear vaccination does not guarantee no transmission, so for me this makes any arguments about endangering others worthless.
I'm well aware that the vaccine is not perfect. However people have a bad habit of mistaking that for it being useless, like you do in the rest of the comment.

Driving cars is inherently unsafe. There's no escaping that. However, people don't oppose seatbelts and airbags on the grounds that they are not guaranteed to save your life.

Remind us again who the childish one is?
I was replying to someone who seemed to unironically use the phrase "facts and logic". If you're aware of the context behind that phrase and who uses it, you'll understand why I replied the way I did.

"Emotive rhetoric" is in and of itself not a bad thing. I don't know how to explain to @Yew that they should, in fact, care about the wellbeing and safety of others, which is what I was getting at with my appeal to empathy for those with medical exemptions to getting vaccinated.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,221
Location
London
I made it very clear near the top of my comment that the framing of vaccines as a freedom issue and a choice is something I strongly disagree with because endangering others is not freedom.

Framing someone choosing not to have a vaccine as “endangering” others is hyperbolic in the extreme, and suggests you do not understand the risk posed by Covid to the vast majority of people. It’s clear the vaccines do not stop spread so being unvaccinated merely reduces the chance of spreading Covid, it does not eliminate it. If you start down a road of mandating against behaviours which cause any possible risk to others, that would cover many everyday activities.

I try to think of what the most vulnerable in society are going through. Imagine being unable to be vaccinated for a very good reason and having a weak immune system, and hearing others talk about maintaining your safety by doing a tiny little, easy, insignificant thing as a choice and wanting the "rights" of those putting you in danger to be respected. You'd be pretty angry with them, wouldn't you?

You appear not to be able to grasp the fact that not everyone is the same as you, and what you consider an easy and insignificant thing might not be for others. People who are young and healthy may consider the risk/reward of the vaccine favours holding off for now. That is a perfectly rational and intellectually sound position to adopt.

People who are so ill that they cannot take the vaccine are likely to be highly at risk from other conditions, and in many cases will be bedbound or in nursing homes. The few people in this category who are circulating in society would do well to consider wearing FFP3 masks. That will provide better protection than relying on others being vaccinated when, as noted above, the vaccine does not prevent spread.
 

NorthOxonian

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
1,483
Location
Oxford/Newcastle
I'm well aware that the vaccine is not perfect. However people have a bad habit of mistaking that for it being useless, like you do in the rest of the comment.

Driving cars is inherently unsafe. There's no escaping that. However, people don't oppose seatbelts and airbags on the grounds that they are not guaranteed to save your life.
The issue is that the benefits of the vaccine are largely for the individual. Vaccine passports are pretty pointless because being surrounded by vaccinated people doesn't make you much safer. If the vaccine had only a small effect on hospitalisations and deaths but reduced transmission by 90%+ (essentially the other way around to now), then there might be a stronger case for some kind of certification. But as it stands the way this vaccine works, passports don't seem like they'd have much benefit.

Also, I wouldn't be as strongly against them if it was just about vaccination. For me it's really the principle. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the way we're becoming more and more of a papers please society. Why should we have to present medical papers just to go about our lives? And this could well be the thin end of the wedge - if they can introduce vaccine passports, what will it be next?
 

ScotRail158725

Established Member
Joined
27 Nov 2018
Messages
2,170
In what way is it fascist to support policy that saves lives? I made it very clear near the top of my comment that the framing of vaccines as a freedom issue and a choice is something I strongly disagree with because endangering others is not freedom.
Its not endangering others though when transmission is no different between vaccinated and unvaccinated. I would feel equally as safe in a nightclub full of 1,000 vaccinated people as i would to a nightclub full of 1,000 unvaccinated people.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
The issue is that the benefits of the vaccine are largely for the individual. Vaccine passports are pretty pointless because being surrounded by vaccinated people doesn't make you much safer. If the vaccine had only a small effect on hospitalisations and deaths but reduced transmission by 90%+ (essentially the other way around to now), then there might be a stronger case for some kind of certification. But as it stands the way this vaccine works, passports don't seem like they'd have much benefit.

Also, I wouldn't be as strongly against them if it was just about vaccination. For me it's really the principle. I'm deeply uncomfortable with the way we're becoming more and more of a papers please society. Why should we have to present medical papers just to go about our lives? And this could well be the thin end of the wedge - if they can introduce vaccine passports, what will it be next?
My support of vaccine passports is mainly motivated by the fact that as a country, we seem to have ruled out another strict lockdown. Whether or not governments stick to this remains to be seen, but the way I see it, if we're going to insist on super-spreader events like concerts and football matches with live audiences going ahead, the least we can do is ensure that the transmissibility is reduced as much as possible. Which the vaccine ensures. Not very well, and I recognise that, as you said in your comment. But something is better than nothing.

Plus it should be as difficult to be willfully unvaccinated as possible for reasons I outlined in my initial comment. Refusing the vaccine is morally no different from bioterrorism in my opinion, justifying extremely harsh penalties against those who aren't vaccinated. If you think this sounds extreme, consider that it's illegal to intentionally spread HIV to other people. Again, I realise that vaccines aren't perfect, but still any reduction in transmission is better than nothing at all.

As for principles, what restricts your freedom more: vaccine passports, or full-scale maximum-level lockdowns? If your principles require you to support a reckless and dangerous course of action, isn't it your principles that are the problem? Vaccine passports suck and I cannot stand that the vaccinated have to put up with crap like this because some people refuse to take this virus seriously. Given the case numbers, I'd say more lockdowns and criminalising vaccine refusal are a better, safer course of action.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I'm well aware that the vaccine is not perfect.

Having the vaccine is mainly about giving one's self a good protection against the effects of Covid.

If *anyone* can take the vaccine, get asymptomatic Covid, and pass it on to someone at risk of a bad Covid outcome then I'm afraid any argument about transmission is worthless to me, and we'd be better off investing capital in looking at what can be done to protect that group of people, the vast majority of whom will already have the protections offered by the vaccine.

An unvaccinated person maintaining distance from others is no more of an idiot than a vaccinated person getting up close to people, wouldn't you agree?

Driving cars is inherently unsafe. There's no escaping that. However, people don't oppose seatbelts and airbags on the grounds that they are not guaranteed to save your life.

This is a false comparison, seatbelts and airbags aren't justified as a means of protecting occupants of other vehicles. If you're using this comparison then more fits the notion that a vaccine is primarily to protect one's self.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
I don't see any of that from antivaxxers, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As soon as you call somebody an antivaxxer you’ve lost the argument, unless they are an actual antivaxxer. Deciding to delay or even decline to be vaccinated against covid does not make somebody an antivaxxer.

You do realise people obtain natural immunity against this virus don’t you? If people in low risk groups (or even higher risk groups, although I’d question their logic) decide they’d rather rely on their immune system to protect them (and others) that’s their business. Incidentally, in regard to “protecting others” unvaccinated people, even without natural immunity, are not guaranteed to infect anybody (especially as so many people ARE now vaccinated). At the same time, vaccinated people are quite capable of infecting others. The case for coerced vaccination is therefore weak at best, or in my opinion and thankfully that of many others, non existent.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Having the vaccine is mainly about giving one's self a good protection against the effects of Covid.

If *anyone* can take the vaccine, get asymptomatic Covid, and pass it on to someone at risk of a bad Covid outcome then I'm afraid any argument about transmission is worthless to me, and we'd be better off investing capital in looking at what can be done to protect that group of people, the vast majority of whom will already have the protections offered by the vaccine.
Again, you're treating "not perfect" as the same as "useless", here. It's a fallacy. Stop doing it.

Vaccines do reduce transmission of the virus so all other factors being equal, the virus will spread less through 1000 vaccinated people at an event than through 1000 unvaccinated people. And I agree that measures to protect people should be much stricter, such as more lockdowns, but that would be an awkward backtrack for Boris Johnson to make so I can understand why he's reluctant to recommend it. It's not really justified, but I can see what motivates him.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Its not endangering others though when transmission is no different between vaccinated and unvaccinated. I would feel equally as safe in a nightclub full of 1,000 vaccinated people as i would to a nightclub full of 1,000 unvaccinated people.
The evidence doesn’t support that view either - there is reduced transmission with a vaccination.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
If you think this sounds extreme, consider that it's illegal to intentionally spread HIV to other people.

Firstly, who’s intentionally spreading covid? Are people really testing positive and then going around coughing over other people on purpose? If they are they deserve to be punished; I’m not sure this kind of behaviour is particularly prevalent though….

Secondly, are you really comparing an endemic respiratory virus with HIV?
 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
2,038
Location
Dundee
Again, you're treating "not perfect" as the same as "useless", here. It's a fallacy. Stop doing it.

Vaccines do reduce transmission of the virus so all other factors being equal, the virus will spread less through 1000 vaccinated people at an event than through 1000 unvaccinated people. And I agree that measures to protect people should be much stricter, such as more lockdowns, but that would be an awkward backtrack for Boris Johnson to make so I can understand why he's reluctant to recommend it. It's not really justified, but I can see what motivates him.

Lockdowns don’t prevent transmission either it’s called kicking the can down the road here but if you believe in that, I believe that is a fact of fallacy too, still though let’s throw everything else under a bus though? More suicides, more cancer deaths but wait we won’t hear none of this from our media either will we? Again another fallacy in all this.

The evidence doesn’t support that view either - there is reduced transmission with a vaccination.
Is there? Last time I checked one minute it was like reported at say 90% then to be debunked at something like 30% and again in the media so what is fact and what is fiction in all this? For a pandemic it’s becoming more of a media spectacle really with overblown reporting without the proper scrutiny regardless.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
The evidence doesn’t support that view either - there is reduced transmission with a vaccination.

Yet some recent reports suggest the Delta variant is just as transmissable either way. Who to believe.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,613
Location
First Class
Yet some recent reports suggest the Delta variant is just as transmissable either way. Who to believe.

Notice how they completely discount natural immunity as well, as if it doesn’t exist. This is despite some experts claiming it’s actually the best form of immunity, by a considerable margin. As you say, who to believe….
 

roversfan2001

Established Member
Joined
19 Feb 2016
Messages
1,666
Location
Lancashire
Again, you're treating "not perfect" as the same as "useless", here. It's a fallacy. Stop doing it.

Vaccines do reduce transmission of the virus so all other factors being equal, the virus will spread less through 1000 vaccinated people at an event than through 1000 unvaccinated people. And I agree that measures to protect people should be much stricter, such as more lockdowns, but that would be an awkward backtrack for Boris Johnson to make so I can understand why he's reluctant to recommend it. It's not really justified, but I can see what motivates him.
What’s the end game in your grand plan of harsh restrictions and medical segregation? Covid is here to stay, like it or not.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Knowing someone who died as a result of Covid being passed on by someone who *was* vaccinated (and who might well have been more careful had they not been), I find this pretty unpalatable to be honest.

It is quite clear vaccination does not guarantee no transmission, so for me this makes any arguments about endangering others worthless.

I think this is a rather key point - regardless of the many other reasons as to why 'passports' and similar things should be opposed, in the current scenario they are useless, quite possibly even counter-productive. We know:

- on average, at this point at least, the vaccines reduce severity of symptoms, and the chances of becoming seriously ill

- but they doesn't do a lot to prevent catching the disease in the first place - indeed, in the latest PHE surveillance report, there were more infections (pro rata) in over 40s in vaccinated people than unvaccinated (!)

- and they don't do a lot to prevent transmitting the disease (see a number of recent studies that show viral loads as high, or higher, in the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated)

Hence 'vaccine passports' would do nothing useful whatever.

Actually I'm starting to wonder if this explains, at least in part, the otherwise rather baffling fact that case rates have been so much higher this year than last, despite vaccinations and much more widespread immunity. Last year if you got Covid you probably felt pretty miserable and stayed at home. This year, if you've been vaccinated and then get Covid, you may well not feel so bad, and carry on doing whatever (and so spreading the virus around)
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,949
Location
UK
Not very well, and I recognise that, as you said in your comment. But something is better than nothing.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."

Which is just about the worst possible justification imaginable for implementing a deeply illiberal and divisive measure like this.

Refusing the vaccine is morally no different from bioterrorism in my opinion, justifying extremely harsh penalties against those who aren't vaccinated.
Would you say the same about smoking, say? Or about the flu jab, which is optional and always has been? Where do you draw the line?

My support of vaccine passports is mainly motivated by the fact that as a country, we seem to have ruled out another strict lockdown.
I would say quite the opposite. Sajid Javid said only yesterday that he would be foolish to rule any measure out.

Lockdowns are still politically acceptable, because many people are under the false impression that they are akin to some magic wand you can wave to make Covid go away. They just don't work, particularly now with the Delta variant - see Australia; also they only delay a spike in cases - spread will continue, sometimes worse than before, as soon as they end.

The reality of how much lockdowns really cost (in lost productivity, government borrowing etc.) has not yet hit home either. A 1¼% tax increase is just the tip of the iceberg.

Whether or not governments stick to this remains to be seen, but the way I see it, if we're going to insist on super-spreader events like concerts and football matches with live audiences going ahead
At what point does your grand plan envisage returning to, oh, I don't know, normal life? Are you seriously suggesting that's just going to be the way we should live forever more - staying at home hiding from the world?

No-one is insisting on anything. But, although it evidently seems you're not that fussed, a significant proportion of the population really didn't mind the "old normal" and would quite like to return to it.

the least we can do is ensure that the transmissibility is reduced as much as possible
This is completely at odds with the fact that Covid has become an endemic virus. Preventing transmission is pretty pointless. But even if it did make sense...

Which the vaccine ensures. Not very well, and I recognise that, as you said in your comment. But something is better than nothing.
Forcing people to be vaccinated is not the answer. As you yourself admit, it has very limited effectiveness in reducing transmission. None of the vaccines were designed to do so, and with the Delta variant they no longer really succeed in doing so.

No, if this were really about stopping transmission you would force everyone to test negative. Including those who are vaccinated - who are in fact more likely to carry the virus, on a pro-rata basis. Or at the very least you would say that a negative test is an acceptable substitute.

But no, this is and always has been about finding a mechanism and an excuse to force people into being vaccinated, not really about preventing the spread of Covid.

That may be for ultimately noble reasons - reducing the strain of unvaccinated people on the NHS - but it is a policy which has grave implications for personal liberties. We have never applied it to any other medical condition as far as I'm aware.

Is this really where we want to go - where, if you happen to be overweight, you only get treated by the NHS if you lose weight? Or if you're a smoker, if you stop smoking? Yes, all of these things (and more) put pressure on the NHS. But where does it end then?

Vaccine passports suck and I cannot stand that the vaccinated have to put up with crap like this because some people refuse to take this virus seriously.
This is an utterly false dichotomy. 89% of people aged 16+ have now been vaccinated at least once. Do you seriously believe that, if you forcibly administered the vaccine into the arms of the other 11% (or "persuaded" them through vaccine passports), this would suddenly make Covid disappear overnight?

No, the only reason that the vaccinated have had to put up with "crap like this" is because lockdowns have been politically acceptable and because the government and its advisors foolishly thought (and possibly still think) they have a purpose in the "fight" against an endemic virus.

The unvaccinated have been a convenient object of anger, but the vast majority of people have already willingly chosen to get vaccinated and at this point, it is solely the nature of human behaviour and Covid's constant adaption to this which is dictating where we go.

Given the case numbers, I'd say more lockdowns and criminalising vaccine refusal are a better, safer course of action.
Ah, I see. So despite England being unlocked for more than 2 months without any major issues, we should lock down again, just to be on the safe side. Gosh, I bet you're fun at parties...
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Again, you're treating "not perfect" as the same as "useless", here. It's a fallacy. Stop doing it.

Vaccines do reduce transmission of the virus so all other factors being equal, the virus will spread less through 1000 vaccinated people at an event than through 1000 unvaccinated people. And I agree that measures to protect people should be much stricter, such as more lockdowns, but that would be an awkward backtrack for Boris Johnson to make so I can understand why he's reluctant to recommend it. It's not really justified, but I can see what motivates him.

We can all give ourselves a 100% chance of not spreading Covid by going indoors and arranging to have all our doors and windows bricked up.

If I’m trying to dodge Covid, knowing whether someone is vaccinated or not is absolutely useless to me unless a vaccinated person has a perfect chance of not transmitting Covid to me, which isn’t the case. Otherwise I’m simply playing a game of Russian roulette, and in which I’m sooner or later going to become unstuck.

I sense we’re simply into scapegoating and comfort blankets again with this, last year it was the same over masks, another measure which had it been effective wouldn’t have us where we are now, yet the amount of political and individual capital invested in it has been disproportionate.

Things are now at the point where we are all going to get Covid at some point if we haven’t already. I can certainly get a desire to encourage vaccination for as many people as possible who are statistically likely to need ICU care in to minimise NHS burden. This, however, needs to be justified based on data, which in this case ought to be fairly easy to obtain and interpret. But trying to dodge it is futile, quite simply it isn’t going to happen. Dodge it from one way and you’ll simply get it from another.

Should I have my house roofed with non-waterproof slates because they might be a bit better than nothing?
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
Plus it should be as difficult to be willfully unvaccinated as possible for reasons I outlined in my initial comment. Refusing the vaccine is morally no different from bioterrorism in my opinion, justifying extremely harsh penalties against those who aren't vaccinated. If you think this sounds extreme, consider that it's illegal to intentionally spread HIV to other people. Again, I realise that vaccines aren't perfect, but still any reduction in transmission is better than nothing at all.

I generally respect the fact that other people will have different opinions to myself, and even if I think those opinions are rather stupid, they are entitled to them. But I think I draw the line at comparing people who have made a rationale decision not to be vaccinated with terrorists. I say this as someone who is fully vaccinated - indeed I booked my first jab as soon as my age cohort became eligible and travelled 20 miles to get it.

In terms of the comparison with intentional spread of HIV - I would say this is covered by the self isolation rules if you test positive. And whatever we think of those rules, I'm not aware of any plans to scrap them.
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
769
Is the change of mind being driven by the recent polliing showing a tie and a Labour lead?

I have always said politicians are more frightened of loosing power than anything else.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
561
Is the change of mind being driven by the recent polliing showing a tie and a Labour lead?

I have always said politicians are more frightened of loosing power than anything else.

They don't want to risk losing a vote in the Commons and know the numbers would have been tight.

And of course they are a shambles of a Government who really don't know what they are doing - they are already rowing back on the announcement of *checks notes* yesterday and saying that "Vaccine Passports are a crucial "first line" defense over the Winter"

We will just have to wait and see what is said tomorrow - the policy could change another 4 times before then.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,673
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Somewhat disappointing and rather predictable move and the existing vaccine passport scheme in Scotland does not go far enough. I do not understand the "freedom" and "personal choice" framing used in conversations about vaccinations and related policy, because it's not a personal choice if it affects others. Even if was truly for your own protection and your own protection alone, what freedom, exactly, is lost by being forced into getting vaccinated? The freedom to die a painful, preventable death or be left with devastating long covid? And those consequences of refusing the vaccine make it no longer just a personal choice again. You may have family or friends who depend on you. You may be making their lifes significantly harder by refusing to take responsibilty for your own health.
You do realise that you affect other people's lives every moment of every interaction? From passing on infections, to a simple smile, you might in some way affect someone's life for the positive or the negative. This whole "because others" narrative is almost as bad, maybe worse than the "must save NHS" one because it ignores the reality of life. It was used simply as a blunt tool to guilt people into staying in their boxes when told, wearing masks right through to vaccines when told. That some people have taken it upon themselves to follow this with religious zeal.

Now that's not to say we shouldn't encourage people to go for the vaccine, of course we should, we can see the results already. But everyone should have the right to make their own choices, for most adults in the UK yet to have a vaccine (now just over 10% for the first dose, less than 20% for the second) this should not involve closing off parts of life, or labelling them as selfish. Many people still do have genuine concerns, they have watched as governments across the world have procrastinated over the various different vaccines & if they are safe for younger people, or indeed safe for people at all. If I were in the 16-30 year old bracket I too would be concerned, because governments & their experts have helped make them sound more dangerous to younger people than they really are. If you want to be angry at someone, I would suggest looking at these politicians first.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
You do realise that you affect other people's lives every moment of every interaction? From passing on infections, to a simple smile, you might in some way affect someone's life for the positive or the negative. This whole "because others" narrative is almost as bad, maybe worse than the "must save NHS" one because it ignores the reality of life. It was used simply as a blunt tool to guilt people into staying in their boxes when told, wearing masks right through to vaccines when told. That some people have taken it upon themselves to follow this with religious zeal.

Now that's not to say we shouldn't encourage people to go for the vaccine, of course we should, we can see the results already. But everyone should have the right to make their own choices, for most adults in the UK yet to have a vaccine (now just over 10% for the first dose, less than 20% for the second) this should not involve closing off parts of life, or labelling them as selfish. Many people still do have genuine concerns, they have watched as governments across the world have procrastinated over the various different vaccines & if they are safe for younger people, or indeed safe for people at all. If I were in the 16-30 year old bracket I too would be concerned, because governments & their experts have helped make them sound more dangerous to younger people than they really are. If you want to be angry at someone, I would suggest looking at these politicians first.
Ire does deserve focusing there, but also - and much more - on the pseudo science and associated briefing that is misrepresenting the risk associated with these vaccines; the latest example being the paper by Roeg et al.
 

asw22

Member
Joined
23 May 2018
Messages
118
Sunday: vaccine passports unlikely to be implemented
Monday: we'll keep them in our armoury
Tuesday?? they'll be used if hospital cases hit a certain level
Wednesday: VPs won't be enough so we'll lockdown anyway

Question: why do we have to go through VPs, vaccines, boosters etc if lockdown 4 is on its way?

With a vaccine efficacy of 90% and a population take up rate of 90% then the R value drops from 3.0 to 0.6
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
There has been - by the clubs not the Government. This thing by the back door is the concern
I am a season ticket holder at Newcastle United and there have been no checks at all regarding Covid.
Why would a football club want to bring in Covid checks through the back door? It makes no commercial sense. When i bought my season ticket there was nothing in the T&Cs saying you needed to be vaccinated to gain entry to the stadium.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
Somewhat disappointing and rather predictable move and the existing vaccine passport scheme in Scotland does not go far enough. I do not understand the "freedom" and "personal choice" framing used in conversations about vaccinations and related policy, because it's not a personal choice if it affects others. Even if was truly for your own protection and your own protection alone, what freedom, exactly, is lost by being forced into getting vaccinated? The freedom to die a painful, preventable death or be left with devastating long covid? And those consequences of refusing the vaccine make it no longer just a personal choice again. You may have family or friends who depend on you. You may be making their lifes significantly harder by refusing to take responsibilty for your own health.

The willfully unvaccinated are treated with an entirely un-earned and un-justifiable respect in discourse about COVID. Why do I have to feel sorry for people being banned from nightclubs for refusing to do the absolute bare minimum to protect their own and the public's health? If they don't like being refused entry, vaccines are free and extremely easy to get. I got my second dose at a drop-in center without pre-arranging an appointment. I've had to put up with a lot of my freedoms being lost and losing out on many social experiences and aspects of college life because of COVID. Things that would not be necessary by now if the vaccine was treated not as a choice, but as a duty. Which it obviously should be by anyone who recognises the severity of the COVID situation.

The only valid reason I recognise for not getting vaccinated is genuine medical exemption, and such exemptions are accounted for in vaccine passport schemes. Any other reason for refusing the vaccine is just a childish "I DON'T WANNA!" temper tantrum to me. We're adults. Learning to do things you don't necessarily want to do for the sake of society as a whole, as well as your own friends and family is a part of maturity. Yes, vaccine side effects suck, but I have had COVID which really puts the vaccine side-effects into perspective. I suffered the worst fatigue of my life for a whole month, and my case was mild. I don't understand why anyone would want to voluntarily put themselves in danger of that, and worse.

The fact that we're even discussing measures which try to coerce people into getting vaccinated shows the disturbing influence of anti-intellectualism in society. In a media-literate and educated society, the need to get vaccinated and lock down early and for prolonged periods would be obvious to everyone and we'd be done with COVID by now. If you are "vaccine-hesitant", I'd love to see the qualifications and research you have in order to conclusively prove that getting vaccinated is objectively more dangerous than catching COVID. Such evidence would be especially groundbreaking given how much deadlier some of the new variants are.

The vaccines have been offered to every adult at this point. Therefore all unvaccinated adults are willfully unvaccinated. I'm sick of the government pandering to them. It's causing COVID's emergency pandemic phase to stretch on longer, and it's causing unvaccinated people with medical exemptions to needlessly die.

I really don’t know what planet you’re living on but the government hasn’t been “pandering” to the unvaccinated, if anything throughly the last 18 months it’s been the reverse, pandering to authoritarians like yourself, what’s the matter? Does the loss of passports not make you feel important? Never mind I guess you’ll get used to a thing called equality, rights and freedom of choice, quite frankly if you disagree with those things I’m certain North Korea will welcome you with open arms.

You need to get a grip, Covid isn’t the apocalypse like most thought it would be, it’s a respiratory virus with a 99% survival rate if you don’t feel safe then you should stay home away from others and let the rest of us get on with our lives.

Don’t worry I’m sure you can virtue signal for some other “worthy” cause
 

P Binnersley

Member
Joined
30 Dec 2018
Messages
427
Is the change of mind being driven by the recent polliing showing a tie and a Labour lead?

I have always said politicians are more frightened of loosing power than anything else.
Or the Conservative party conference being in October?
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,743
Location
Cheshunt
I am a season ticket holder at Newcastle United and there have been no checks at all regarding Covid.
Why would a football club want to bring in Covid checks through the back door? It makes no commercial sense. When i bought my season ticket there was nothing in the T&Cs saying you needed to be vaccinated to gain entry to the stadium.
I think all Premier League fans should boycott games and lets test that "football is all about the fans" chat we heard from the clubs when the break away league threatened! The problem is football fans will shop themselves in to see their teams at any cost.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,894
I think all Premier League fans should boycott games and lets test that "football is all about the fans" chat we heard from the clubs when the break away league threatened! The problem is football fans will shop themselves in to see their teams at any cost.
I am not sure what you are getting at. From a Covid point of view, i have no reason to boycott games as there are no Covid requirements at Newcastle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top