• 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.

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,901
Location
East Midlands
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 -

Coercion -

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.
People who turn down Covid vaccination are "selfish" and put others' lives at risk, Cabinet Office Minister Michael Gove has said.
He warned that those declining a jab could see themselves barred from events requiring "a certain level of safety".
[Quack]
Sounds like both a threat and moral pressure to me.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,484
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 -

Coercion -

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.

Either you’re naive and have blind faith in Boris or in denial if you fail to see that what’s happening isn’t coercion or blackmail, don’t need books to tell me what I can see before my very eyes.

The regime are very clearly stating that if one doesn’t get the jab then they cannot take part in everyday life, that is coercion right there for you! Clear as day.
 

Jimini

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2006
Messages
434
Location
Hammersmith
The slippery slope continues apace..



Tottenham to trial use of NHS Covid Pass in friendlies against Arsenal​



Tottenham will trial the use of the NHS Covid Pass for fans who want to attend friendlies against Arsenal next month.

Spectators must prove they are fully vaccinated against coronavirus or have had a negative test in the 48 hours before the match is played.
The trial comes after the government announcedproof of full vaccination may be required to attend sports venues from the end of September.

Spurs will host both men's and women's games against Arsenal on 8 August.

Tottenham said in the statement that the trial "follows recent government announcements and the necessity for the club to begin preparations for the potential of full vaccination against Covid-19 being a condition of entry to large events from 1 October".

Supporters under the age of 18 are not part of the trial nor do they need to present a negative test.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,964
Either you’re naive and have blind faith in Boris or in denial if you fail to see that what’s happening isn’t coercion or blackmail, don’t need books to tell me what I can see before my very eyes.

The regime are very clearly stating that if one doesn’t get the jab then they cannot take part in everyday life, that is coercion right there for you! Clear as day.
No, they are saying that certain activities would be off limits.

Words have meanings, and they’re not always the meaning we want them to have.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,484
No, they are saying that certain activities would be off limits.

Words have meanings, and they’re not always the meaning we want them to have.

Which is coercion, you can twist it around anyway you want, doesn’t alter the fact that the government are clearly stating that those who don’t want the vaccine will be excluded.

As for your second paragraph, you’d do well to actually remember that yourself, and not be selective.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,074
Location
nowhere
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.

The government isn't far left by any means. Politics doesn't exist on a purely left/right line, there's also an authoritarian/libertarian dimension. The government remains largely the same in terms of it's economic principles (left/right), but would seem to be more authoritarian than it may once have been
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,964
Which is coercion, you can twist it around anyway you want, doesn’t alter the fact that the government are clearly stating that those who don’t want the vaccine will be excluded.

As for your second paragraph, you’d do well to actually remember that yourself, and not be selective.
As I said earlier, the definition of coercion works at the level of the basic truism that being limited in what we can do by law is a form of coercion.

Without commenting on the merits of this policy in particular, I’m struggling to see why mandatory vaccination is different in kind from laws that put conditions on whether we can drive, or buy alcohol, or any of the other constraints that law puts upon us. And likewise I don’t see what’s different about having to prove age (also something quite personal) to proving whether I’ve had a particular vaccination.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,484
As I said earlier, the definition of coercion works at the level of the basic truism that being limited in what we can do by law is a form of coercion.

Without commenting on the merits of this policy in particular, I’m struggling to see why mandatory vaccination is different in kind from laws that put conditions on whether we can drive, or buy alcohol, or any of the other constraints that law puts upon us. And likewise I don’t see what’s different about having to prove age (also something quite personal) to proving whether I’ve had a particular vaccination.

Because it’s our choice what treatments we choose to have and that shouldn’t effect our daily lives.

There is zero comparison with conditions to drive or to buy alcohol for age related reasons

This is basically ID cards through the backdoor and a slippery slope into a “new normal” which disregards freedoms of choice
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
418
As I said earlier, the definition of coercion works at the level of the basic truism that being limited in what we can do by law is a form of coercion.

Without commenting on the merits of this policy in particular, I’m struggling to see why mandatory vaccination is different in kind from laws that put conditions on whether we can drive, or buy alcohol, or any of the other constraints that law puts upon us. And likewise I don’t see what’s different about having to prove age (also something quite personal) to proving whether I’ve had a particular vaccination.

The big difference to me is that it is requiring you to undertake an invasive medical procedure which is not risk free.

With something like alcohol there is no possible harm in asking me to prove my age nor any detriment in the act of doing so.

Are Spurs the first club to actually mention October 1st out loud? Previously had been rumour and leak for football
 

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
369
Location
London
Because it’s our choice what treatments we choose to have and that shouldn’t effect our daily lives.

There is zero comparison with conditions to drive or to buy alcohol for age related reasons
I would advise ignoring further communication with 35B. He has demonstrated extreme pedantry and ‘what iffery’ over quite a few topics which mostly just ruin any form of discussion with endless, circular ‘what if.’
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
13,927
Location
No longer here
Because it’s our choice what treatments we choose to have and that shouldn’t effect our daily lives.

There is zero comparison with conditions to drive or to buy alcohol for age related reasons
The difference here is this treatment is designed to reduce the risk of you passing on a potentially serious disease to someone, a disease which has not just killed people but also shut down vast swathes of the economy, ruined the lives of people who don’t even have the disease and forced us all to live a weak facsimile of our former lives.

I am still not convinced that the vaccine passport idea passes the proportionality test but there’s a debate to be had.

There are a small sliver of people out there who are against lockdowns, against masks, against all reasonable precautions, and against vaccines and those people are simply in denial.
 

Annetts key

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
679
Location
West is best
The regime are very clearly stating that if one doesn’t get the jab then they cannot take part in everyday life, that is coercion right there for you! Clear as day.
So do you go to a nightclub every day? Go to a football match every day?
We all already have limits and restrictions on us. For example, it’s not legal to be drunk and drive. In my employment, I’m not allowed to have ANY alcohol in my body when at work. So as I work shifts, this restricts which days and when in the day I can drink alcohol. Is this restricting my civil liberties? When I first started my career, the alcohol restrictions did not exist. Now it’s law.

Personally, I think the government should be going with far more positive encouragement and education system rather than a negative restriction system. But unfortunately politicians often reach for the stick rather than the carrot. Just look at today’s announcement of extending stop and search and having more visible ‘chain gangs’.

Although it has to be said that sometimes a bit of both is needed.

So what positive encouragement measures or education measures do you think would help to increase the number of people getting vaccinated?

Is this a point of principle? People being afraid? People having been taken in by the anti-vaxx industry or some other reason?

And yes, of course there are people who for medical reasons should not or cannot be vaccinated.
 
Last edited:

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,484
I am still not convinced that the vaccine passport idea passes the proportionality test but there’s a debate to be had.

There are a small sliver of people out there who are against lockdowns, against masks, against all reasonable precautions, and against vaccines and those people are simply in denial.

Reduce the risk not stop it, people who have been vaccinated have still caught Covid and passed it on.

Covid is serious for who? Not for the young, it has a 99% survival rate and the average age death of 82, not bad for a nation with a life expectancy of 81, Covid is something people have got to get used to, and vaccine passports are a completely irrational.

We’re not in March 2020, we’ve come along way since then.

Vaccine passports for pubs and nightclubs and other events won’t heal the economy, it’ll create a two tier society.
 
Last edited:

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,964
Because it’s our choice what treatments we choose to have and that shouldn’t effect our daily lives.

There is zero comparison with conditions to drive or to buy alcohol for age related reasons

This is basically ID cards through the backdoor and a slippery slope into a “new normal” which disregards freedoms of choice
Your point about ID cards may be right, but you'd be a lot more convincing if you argued that rather than expect us to believe a load of bogus assertions about "coercion" or "blackmail", let alone the myths around "Nuremberg Code".
The difference here is this treatment is designed to reduce the risk of you passing on a potentially serious disease to someone, a disease which has not just killed people but also shut down vast swathes of the economy, ruined the lives of people who don’t even have the disease and forced us all to live a weak facsimile of our former lives.

I am still not convinced that the vaccine passport idea passes the proportionality test but there’s a debate to be had.

There are a small sliver of people out there who are against lockdowns, against masks, against all reasonable precautions, and against vaccines and those people are simply in denial.
Absolutely.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,600
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
As I said earlier, the definition of coercion works at the level of the basic truism that being limited in what we can do by law is a form of coercion.

Without commenting on the merits of this policy in particular, I’m struggling to see why mandatory vaccination is different in kind from laws that put conditions on whether we can drive, or buy alcohol, or any of the other constraints that law puts upon us. And likewise I don’t see what’s different about having to prove age (also something quite personal) to proving whether I’ve had a particular vaccination.
What's different? Getting a driving license requires you to take tests, buying alcohol requires you to be of a certain age and able to prove it. What is potentially going to be asked in the future is that in order to partake in a number of normal activities you must have medical interventions and be able to prove them. That's a large step above other legal mandatory requirements. And more over thanks to the rather vague scenarios requiring them being suggested, the scope of them could and probably would be changed on little more than political whom.

So a 20,000 capacity crowd could be reduced to 15K, 10K or even a couple of hundred. And large clubs could morph to small working men's clubs, pubs, cafes or even a food takeaway. Basically anywhere indoors or where crowds gather. That would be more akin to you requiring a driving licence just to ride in a car, or indeed buy a sandwich.

I'm sorry to bring the conversation back to this point, but it is the thin edge of a very thick wedge. Tomorrow you might be required to prove your covid status to go to the football, the next day you might have to prove you are free of all pathogens just to leave the house to go shopping or even just to go for a walk. One only has to look over the channel to see the mission creep. After all future health bosses might be able to save money not by proving more efficiencies, but by convincing politicians to test our health as a normal function of society.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,074
Location
nowhere
The difference here is this treatment is designed to reduce the risk of you passing on a potentially serious disease to someone, a disease which has not just killed people but also shut down vast swathes of the economy, ruined the lives of people who don’t even have the disease and forced us all to live a weak facsimile of our former lives.

It reduces the risk of you getting severe symptoms or dying in the event of catching the disease, the reduction in transmission is not the "design aim" at all, more a convenient side effect (given the supposed ~50% efficacy in reducing transmission, it wouldn't have passed trials on that alone)

Requiring people at minimal risk (and thus minimal benefit from the vaccine) to get the vaccine is most certainly not proportional. By all means they should take it up if offered, reduce the risk even further, but compulsion - either "out front" or "by the back door" isn't on
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,484
So do you go to a nightclub every day? Go to a football match every day?
We all already have limits and restrictions on us. For example, it’s not legal to be drunk and drive. In my employment, I’m not allowed to have ANY alcohol in my body when at work. So as I work shifts, this restricts which days and when in the day I can drink alcohol. I’d this restricting my civil liberties? When I first started my career, the alcohol restrictions did not exist.

Personally, I think the government should be going with far more a positive encouragement and education system rather than a negative restriction system. But unfortunately politicians often reach for the stick rather than the carrot. Just look at today’s announcement of extending stop and search and having more visible ‘chain gangs’.

Although it has to be said that sometimes a bit of both is needed.

So what positive encouragement measures or education measures do you think would help to increase the number of people getting vaccinated?

Is this a point of principle? People being afraid? People having been taken in by the anti-vaxx industry or some other reason?

And yes, of course there are people who for medical reasons should not or cannot be vaccinated.

Seeing as you’ve chosen the pedantic route with the first paragraph, should I remind you that in France they are proposing DVP’s to get to the supermarket? If you don’t think that’s next on the agenda you are very much mistaken.

And as for your job not to have any alcohol in your body in your place of work, that’s basic common sense and again another false equivalence to the DVP quite frankly.
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
1,681
What's different? Getting a driving license requires you to take tests, buying alcohol requires you to be of a certain age and able to prove it. What is potentially going to be asked in the future is that in order to partake in a number of normal activities you must have medical interventions and be able to prove them. That's a large step above other legal mandatory requirements. And more over thanks to the rather vague scenarios requiring them being suggested, the scope of them could and probably would be changed on little more than political whom.

So a 20,000 capacity crowd could be reduced to 15K, 10K or even a couple of hundred. And large clubs could morph to small working men's clubs, pubs, cafes or even a food takeaway. Basically anywhere indoors or where crowds gather. That would be more akin to you requiring a driving licence just to ride in a car, or indeed buy a sandwich.

I'm sorry to bring the conversation back to this point, but it is the thin edge of a very thick wedge. Tomorrow you might be required to prove your covid status to go to the football, the next day you might have to prove you are free of all pathogens just to leave the house to go shopping or even just to go for a walk. One only has to look over the channel to see the mission creep. After all future health bosses might be able to save money not by proving more efficiencies, but by convincing politicians to test our health as a normal function of society.
We have not always been on the same side in discussions, but on this topic I have to say that I completely agree with all that you’ve put there.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,484
I would advise ignoring further communication with 35B. He has demonstrated extreme pedantry and ‘what iffery’ over quite a few topics which mostly just ruin any form of discussion with endless, circular ‘what if.’

I just don’t understand the what aboutry or the false equivalence quite frankly.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,660
Location
Ely

[Quack]
Sounds like both a threat and moral pressure to me.

Give we seem to be arguing about the definitions of words now, 'selfish' is a rather interesting choice of words for the ever-delightful Mr Gove to use.

Per the Cambridge dictionary : 'someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage.'

Is he claiming there are personal advantages to not being vaccinated? I wonder what he thinks those are.
 

Baxenden Bank

Established Member
Joined
23 Oct 2013
Messages
2,647
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.
At present a nightclub (or other business) may choose to deny you entry to their premises for their reasons (providing it's not discrimination). What is now being proposed is that they must deny entry for the governments reasons.

I suspect the government is pushing this specifically because the industry association stood up and said 'no we won't unless you force us'. So the government has chosen to force them. They are not (yet) forcing it on other businesses because they haven't, as a body, stood up and said no.

Picking off the opposition one at a time.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,964
Give we seem to be arguing about the definitions of words now, 'selfish' is a rather interesting choice of words for the ever-delightful Mr Gove to use.

Per the Cambridge dictionary : 'someone who is selfish only thinks of their own advantage.'

Is he claiming there are personal advantages to not being vaccinated? I wonder what he thinks those are.
I would accept the charge of selfishness for declining to give blood because my dislike of needles is sufficiently well formed that the thought of giving blood gives me the heebie-jeebies enough that I won't do it. Other words - cowardice first among them - come to mind as better suited.

However, I suspect that Gove is suggesting that those refusing to be vaccinated because they don't need it are being selfish because they are refusing to think of the wider consequences of their action should they fall ill - as some, undoubtedly, will, no matter how robust they think themselves.

Personally, I wish he'd kept his mouth shut - he is very effective at persuading people that black is white by the simple fact of asserting that black is indeed black.
What's different? Getting a driving license requires you to take tests, buying alcohol requires you to be of a certain age and able to prove it. What is potentially going to be asked in the future is that in order to partake in a number of normal activities you must have medical interventions and be able to prove them. That's a large step above other legal mandatory requirements. And more over thanks to the rather vague scenarios requiring them being suggested, the scope of them could and probably would be changed on little more than political whom.

So a 20,000 capacity crowd could be reduced to 15K, 10K or even a couple of hundred. And large clubs could morph to small working men's clubs, pubs, cafes or even a food takeaway. Basically anywhere indoors or where crowds gather. That would be more akin to you requiring a driving licence just to ride in a car, or indeed buy a sandwich.

I'm sorry to bring the conversation back to this point, but it is the thin edge of a very thick wedge. Tomorrow you might be required to prove your covid status to go to the football, the next day you might have to prove you are free of all pathogens just to leave the house to go shopping or even just to go for a walk. One only has to look over the channel to see the mission creep. After all future health bosses might be able to save money not by proving more efficiencies, but by convincing politicians to test our health as a normal function of society.
I asked about the difference in kind, not of degree. I chose normal activities where the government imposes restrictions - opposed when introduced - on who may exercise them, and that put burdens on those wishing to exercise them. I see no difference in kind between those and proving vaccine status.

As I replied to @NorthKent1989, there's a very strong argument to be made about ID cards, and the boundaries of the legitimate role of government - I may not believe that the intent is some kind of social credit system, or even that the slippery slope argument is being fairly used, but having seen the arguments in the Blair years about ID cards, I'm well aware of their importance. The problem is the nonsense of pleading coercion when government "coerces" us all the time through the laws it passes.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,901
Location
East Midlands
Seeing as you’ve chosen the pedantic route with the first paragraph, should I remind you that in France they are proposing DVP’s to get to the supermarket? If you don’t think that’s next on the agenda you are very much mistaken.

And as for your job not to have any alcohol in your body in your place of work, that’s basic common sense and again another false equivalence to the DVP quite frankly.
And also in France, the law has already been passed to mandate proof of full vaccination or a recent negative Covid test for entry to bars, restaurants and for long-distance trains and flights. [I think that the definition of long-distance trains is 2.5 hours + journey time].
The law includes mandatory full vaccination for health workers and staff in certain popular venues, such as restaurants and cinemas.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,660
Location
Ely
I would accept the charge of selfishness for declining to give blood because my dislike of needles is sufficiently well formed that the thought of giving blood gives me the heebie-jeebies enough that I won't do it. Other words - cowardice first among them - come to mind as better suited.

But that's not 'selfish'. It is a good thing to give blood if you can, but there's no requirement to do so, there never should be any requirement to do so, and not choosing to do so - for whatever reason - is your own business.

However, I suspect that Gove is suggesting that those refusing to be vaccinated because they don't need it are being selfish because they are refusing to think of the wider consequences of their action should they fall ill - as some, undoubtedly, will, no matter how robust they think themselves.

Generally if someone falls ill the person who suffers most are themselves! That doesn't strike me as 'selfish'. (If he'd said 'stupid' instead - then I'd disagree with him, but he'd have an arguable point at least). Now if you have dependents (I don't), then you may argue that you should take whatever reasonable steps you can to protect them from your no longer being able to support them - but that's a family matter and certainly none of Mr Gove's business.

I note you also said 'refusing to be vaccinated because they don't need it'. Exactly so - no-one should be required to take a medical treatment they don't need, whatever the potential benefit to society. Note that part of giving 'informed consent' involves that the treatment is of benefit to the *patient* (*not* to society as a whole).
 

Watershed

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
3,191
Location
UK
I asked about the difference in kind, not of degree. I chose normal activities where the government imposes restrictions - opposed when introduced - on who may exercise them, and that put burdens on those wishing to exercise them. I see no difference in kind between those and proving vaccine status.
The fundamental difference is that having the vaccine is permanent. Whereas there is nothing permanent about learning to drive or getting a passport. You cannot unvaccinate yourself if, in 10 years' time, it turns out that one of the Covid vaccines reduce life expectancy or [insert other side effect here].

Now, that's fairly unlikely, but people should be free to make a fully consenting decision as to whether or not they wish to undergo that risk (in exchange for the fairly well understood benefits).

It is utterly disgusting for the government to try and dance around the Public Health Act's prohibition on forced medical treatment by saying "it's not mandatory - you just can't go into any shop or public place without it".

And in any case - if this were really about reducing risk then why is a negative test not an acceptable alternative to a vaccine, as in almost all other European countries? It is well known that vaccination primarily reduces the incidence of serious illness - not transmission.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,484
I would accept the charge of selfishness for declining to give blood because my dislike of needles is sufficiently well formed that the thought of giving blood gives me the heebie-jeebies enough that I won't do it. Other words - cowardice first among them - come to mind as better suited.

However, I suspect that Gove is suggesting that those refusing to be vaccinated because they don't need it are being selfish because they are refusing to think of the wider consequences of their action should they fall ill - as some, undoubtedly, will, no matter how robust they think themselves.

Personally, I wish he'd kept his mouth shut - he is very effective at persuading people that black is white by the simple fact of asserting that black is indeed black.

I asked about the difference in kind, not of degree. I chose normal activities where the government imposes restrictions - opposed when introduced - on who may exercise them, and that put burdens on those wishing to exercise them. I see no difference in kind between those and proving vaccine status.

As I replied to @NorthKent1989, there's a very strong argument to be made about ID cards, and the boundaries of the legitimate role of government - I may not believe that the intent is some kind of social credit system, or even that the slippery slope argument is being fairly used, but having seen the arguments in the Blair years about ID cards, I'm well aware of their importance. The problem is the nonsense of pleading coercion when government "coerces" us all the time through the laws it passes.

This is very much head in the sand with your last sentence, there is no quote unquote that what is happening now is coercion it’s coercion pure and simple, never before has this happened on a massive scale, in that case let’s deny smokers the right to use the NHS then? They’re clogging up the NHS by choosing to smoke toxicity into their bodies, let’s deny over-eaters the right to use the NHS because they can’t stop eating, when put in those terms it doesn’t sound so nice and rosy does it?

The very fact you constantly try to excuse the government with what aboutry’s is pure nonsense.

And also in France, the law has already been passed to mandate proof of full vaccination or a recent negative Covid test for entry to bars, restaurants and for long-distance trains and flights. [I think that the definition of long-distance trains is 2.5 hours + journey time].
The law includes mandatory full vaccination for health workers and staff in certain popular venues, such as restaurants and cinemas.

Yes this is exactly what has happened in the next country over across the channel, yet there are some members who are choosing to not see this or are very okay with a two tier system in which discrimination will inevitably happen
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,600
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I would accept the charge of selfishness for declining to give blood because my dislike of needles is sufficiently well formed that the thought of giving blood gives me the heebie-jeebies enough that I won't do it. Other words - cowardice first among them - come to mind as better suited.

However, I suspect that Gove is suggesting that those refusing to be vaccinated because they don't need it are being selfish because they are refusing to think of the wider consequences of their action should they fall ill - as some, undoubtedly, will, no matter how robust they think themselves.

Personally, I wish he'd kept his mouth shut - he is very effective at persuading people that black is white by the simple fact of asserting that black is indeed black.

I asked about the difference in kind, not of degree. I chose normal activities where the government imposes restrictions - opposed when introduced - on who may exercise them, and that put burdens on those wishing to exercise them. I see no difference in kind between those and proving vaccine status.
The difference is immense, and I'm sure you know it. Effectively having to take a pharmaceutical intervention which may ultimately require regular additional jabs, and with very small but nonetheless potential risks to your person is nothing like taking a driving test that you might only ever take once in your life. Not even close.

As I replied to @NorthKent1989, there's a very strong argument to be made about ID cards, and the boundaries of the legitimate role of government - I may not believe that the intent is some kind of social credit system, or even that the slippery slope argument is being fairly used, but having seen the arguments in the Blair years about ID cards, I'm well aware of their importance. The problem is the nonsense of pleading coercion when government "coerces" us all the time through the laws it passes.
A strong argument for what? ID cards night have their potential uses in accessing free at the point of service public services, but we are taking about them potential being used for something as benine as going for a pint, or buying of loaf of bread. That you continue to dance around the issues with vague "against, maybe, maybe not" comments continue to convince me that you are try to say on thing but actually think the opposite.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,027
The difference here is this treatment is designed to reduce the risk of you passing on a potentially serious disease to someone, a disease which has not just killed people but also shut down vast swathes of the economy, ruined the lives of people who don’t even have the disease and forced us all to live a weak facsimile of our former lives.

I am still not convinced that the vaccine passport idea passes the proportionality test but there’s a debate to be had.

There are a small sliver of people out there who are against lockdowns, against masks, against all reasonable precautions, and against vaccines and those people are simply in denial.
I thought the treatment was to protect the individual, not to prevent you passing it on

Do you think we should mandate medical interventions to prevent all 'potentially serious' diseases?

The disease has not shut down the economy and ruined lives. That was a decision of government.

I would suggest that the 'small sliver' of people against lockdowns are larger than you think. People need to work, learn and socialise - why do you think they are in denial?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top