• 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.

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
13,188
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Yes, the art of reasoned debate has been completely lost. Instead of trying to change peoples' views with facts and figures, the term 'anti vaxxer' is used, as if that's meant to win an argument. To me it just shows a lack of knowledge, research or any kind of critical thinking. It was the same with the Brexit debate - if you even questioned the EU or its motives, you were called a Brexiteer, even if you on balance voted remain.

As you say, it's a horrid indictment of the nation's IQ.

We can possibly blame social media for this. Somewhere like this forum exposes people to a range of views, but Facebook and Twitter in particular tends to be like a wedding cake where people simply pile more of the same on top.

Same with the Facebook generation, where when two people bust up the whole thing is played out on social media in the form of each half putting pointed messages on their public Facebook page for the other to see. It’s ghastly.

The whole Covid thing is certainly a cautionary tale for our country.

I'd agree with all that. Behaviour on the network seems to be far, far worse than it was pre Covid.

On Monday, I was on a GWR train and the guard was aggressively threatened with violence at two consecutive stops by two separate fare evades who were then promptly removed from the train. For context, this was a lightly loaded Castle HST in Cornwall in the middle of the day. The conductor though was excellent. Wasn't phased by it at all and was more concerned about apologising to passengers who'd had to hear it. Which in itself is quite revealing really given some of the things heard.

People are a lot more aggressive. I put it down to the lack of structured interactions with others over the last 18 months. The hospitality sector have certainly been getting it in the neck too.

More reasons to get back to 2019 normal ASAP and be done with this now.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Cheshunt
What makes you think that?
I read they were making plans for it


In fact it would seem from the link the little so and so’s are already running their own medical science venues

Who do these fools think they are?
 
Last edited:

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,369
If you want respect for your view, you need to avoid misrepresenting the evidence. There is a rare side effect (myocarditis) in teenage boys, which occurs with enough frequency to mean that, given the probabilities around Covid, the medical risk/benefit balance is relatively even. That is something very different from the risk being likely). It also needs to be considered against the risk associated with the main cause of myocarditis - viral infection.

The risks associated with these vaccines are measured in incidents per million, which is a sign of how rare they are. Accepting for the moment your oft quoted figure of 99% of those infected Covid surviving, your risk from Covid is materially higher than that from the vaccines.

Given the nature of vaccines, and how they work, the impact is felt quickly - which is why with the billions of doses already given, the risk to anyone without specific contraindications is negligible.

Rare or not the risk still needs to be reported, No matter how small a number or risk, so what exactly is your point? There is still a risk and in my opinion healthy children don’t need the vaccine they are not there to protect adults, it’s only misrepresentation because it’s something you don’t agree with

I know you don’t like this fact but people have a right to make an informed decision and not be punished for it

We can possibly blame social media for this. Somewhere like this forum exposes people to a range of views, but Facebook and Twitter in particular tends to be like a wedding cake where people simply pile more of the same on top.

Same with the Facebook generation, where when two people bust up the whole thing is played out on social media in the form of each half putting pointed messages on their public Facebook page for the other to see. It’s ghastly.

The whole Covid thing is certainly a cautionary tale for our country.

Brexit was the first case in exposing how toxic social media can be and sadly few have learned from that debacle during this Covid period.
 
Last edited:

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
1,657
Location
First Class
Rare or not the risk still needs to be reported, No matter how small a number or risk, so what exactly is your point? There is still a risk and in my opinion healthy children don’t need the vaccine they are not there to protect adults.

I know you don’t like this fact but people have a right to make an informed decision and not be punished for it.

The interesting thing is this isn’t just your opinion, the JCVI agreed with you but was overruled. I find the following statement on the government website rather amusing:

It is not within the JCVI’s remit to consider the wider societal impacts of vaccination, including educational benefits. The government may wish to seek further views on the wider societal and educational impacts from the Chief Medical Officers of the UK 4 nations.


These would be the same CMOs who’ve maintained throughout that considering wider societal impacts isn’t within they’re remit, it’s the job of the politicians….

Brexit was the first case in exposing how toxic social media can be and sadly few have learned from that debacle during this Covid period.

I’ve no idea how to solve this problem to be honest. I’ve completely distanced myself from it (Facebook, Twitter etc.) but the chances of enough people doing the same in order for it’s influence to wane are zero.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,369
The interesting thing is this isn’t just your opinion, the JCVI agreed with you but was overruled. I find the following statement on the government website rather amusing:




These would be the same CMOs who’ve maintained throughout that considering wider societal impacts isn’t within they’re remit, it’s the job of the politicians….

And yet the same people who cried “Listen to science” throughout all of this are readying their kids to be jabbed, it seems that people are very selective when it comes to that go to statement.

I’ve no idea how to solve this problem to be honest. I’ve completely distanced myself from it (Facebook, Twitter etc.) but the chances of enough people doing the same in order for it’s influence to wane are zero.

You're not missing out on much, you made the right choice I myself have distanced myself from social media because of how toxic and divisive it became
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
Manchester
Rare or not the risk still needs to be reported, No matter how small a number or risk, so what exactly is your point? There is still a risk and in my opinion healthy children don’t need the vaccine they are not there to protect adults, it’s only misrepresentation because it’s something you don’t agree with

The majority of medicines, foods, leisure activities even, all carry a degree of risk with them for whatever reason. However, like with the vaccine, the risk in a lot of cases is low enough to not being worth stated or reported; so why should this vaccine be any different?
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,369
The majority of medicines, foods, leisure activities even, all carry a degree of risk with them for whatever reason. However, like with the vaccine, the risk in a lot of cases is low enough to not being worth stated or reported; so why should this vaccine be any different?

By your logic then we should never have locked down after the first one if life in general has a degree of risk. Covid has a 99% survival rate for most of the population so in that case it really wasn’t worth wasting the last 18 months for our lives over was it?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,896
Rare or not the risk still needs to be reported, No matter how small a number or risk, so what exactly is your point? There is still a risk and in my opinion healthy children don’t need the vaccine they are not there to protect adults, it’s only misrepresentation because it’s something you don’t agree with

I know you don’t like this fact but people have a right to make an informed decision and not be punished for it
You are entitled to your view, but not to the expectation that either (a) others will agree with you or (b) that if one of those others is government, they may implement policies that are to your disadvantage.

Meanwhile, I stand by my earlier comments about misrepresentation. Quoting the whole JCVI release (rather than the paragraph cherry picked by @DustyBin), they explicitly state that this is about whether vaccination delivers enough benefit, not that vaccination is high risk to this group (my emphasis applied):
It is not within the JCVI’s remit to consider the wider societal impacts of vaccination, including educational benefits. The government may wish to seek further views on the wider societal and educational impacts from the Chief Medical Officers of the UK 4 nations.

For the vast majority of children, SARS-CoV-2 infection is asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and will resolve without treatment. Of the very few children aged 12 to 15 years who require hospitalisation, the majority have underlying health conditions. The committee has recommended the expansion of the list of conditions to which the offer applies for at-risk 12 to 15 year olds.

There is evidence of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis. This is an extremely rare adverse event. The medium- to long-term effects are unknown and long-term follow-up is being conducted.

Given the very low risk of serious COVID-19 disease in otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year olds, considerations on the potential harms and benefits of vaccination are very finely balanced and a precautionary approach was agreed.

Professor Wei Shen Lim, Chair of COVID-19 Immunisation for the JCVI, said:
Children aged 12 to 15 years old with underlying health conditions that put them at higher risk of severe COVID-19 should be offered COVID-19 vaccination. The range of underlying health conditions that apply has recently been expanded.
For otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year old children, their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small. The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms.
Taking a precautionary approach, this margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal COVID-19 vaccination for this age group at this time. The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge.
When deciding on childhood immunisations, the JCVI has consistently maintained that the main focus should be the benefits to children themselves, balanced against any potential harms to them from vaccination.

As longer-term data on potential adverse reactions accumulates, greater certainty may allow for a reconsideration of the benefits and harms. This data may not be available for several months.

Previously, the JCVI advised that children with severe neurodisabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression, profound and multiple learning disabilities, and severe learning disabilities or who are on the learning disability register, should be offered COVID-19 vaccination.

Following consideration of updated data on hospital admissions and deaths, the JCVI advises that this offer should be expanded to include children aged 12 to 15 with the following:
  • haematological malignancy
  • sickle cell disease
  • type 1 diabetes
  • congenital heart disease
  • other health conditions as described in Annex A
Children with poorly controlled asthma and less common conditions, often due to congenital or metabolic defects where respiratory infections can result in severe illness, should also be offered COVID-19 vaccination.
I've no problem in a difference of view based on different weightings of risk factors. I do have a problem with persistent misrepresentation.
And yet the same people who cried “Listen to science” throughout all of this are readying their kids to be jabbed, it seems that people are very selective when it comes to that go to statement.
I am listening to the science, and I am judging that the marginal benefit is worthwhile for my daughter given the broader factors that JCVI asked for a ruling on, both directly and indirectly through the benefits to her and her peers.

You're not missing out on much, you made the right choice I myself have distanced myself from social media because of how toxic and divisive it became
Just a reminder that fora like this are also social media; you may want to consider whether your posts are part of that toxic and divisive climate.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
1,657
Location
First Class
You are entitled to your view, but not to the expectation that either (a) others will agree with you or (b) that if one of those others is government, they may implement policies that are to your disadvantage.

Meanwhile, I stand by my earlier comments about misrepresentation. Quoting the whole JCVI release (rather than the paragraph cherry picked by @DustyBin), they explicitly state that this is about whether vaccination delivers enough benefit, not that vaccination is high risk to this group (my emphasis applied):

I've no problem in a difference of view based on different weightings of risk factors. I do have a problem with persistent misrepresentation.

I am listening to the science, and I am judging that the marginal benefit is worthwhile for my daughter given the broader factors that JCVI asked for a ruling on, both directly and indirectly through the benefits to her and her peers.


Just a reminder that fora like this are also social media; you may want to consider whether your posts are part of that toxic and divisive climate.

I wasn't attempting to misrepresent anything. The reason I "cherry picked" that paragraph was to make the point that the CMOs can now, rather conveniently, advise in regard to the wider societal impacts of interventions whereas they previously claimed they couldn't. For the record I don't think the vaccines are high risk to children (or any group for that matter) but clearly the risk-benefit does change (which is the point I believe the JCVI made).
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,369
You are entitled to your view, but not to the expectation that either (a) others will agree with you or (b) that if one of those others is government, they may implement policies that are to your disadvantage.

Meanwhile, I stand by my earlier comments about misrepresentation. Quoting the whole JCVI release (rather than the paragraph cherry picked by @DustyBin), they explicitly state that this is about whether vaccination delivers enough benefit, not that vaccination is high risk to this group (my emphasis applied):

I've no problem in a difference of view based on different weightings of risk factors. I do have a problem with persistent misrepresentation.

I am listening to the science, and I am judging that the marginal benefit is worthwhile for my daughter given the broader factors that JCVI asked for a ruling on, both directly and indirectly through the benefits to her and her peers.


Just a reminder that fora like this are also social media; you may want to consider whether your posts are part of that toxic and divisive climate.

Your first point, yes I am entitled to my view and yes I am fully aware that others don’t agree with me (shock horror!) you may want to take some of your own advice.

In regards to your daughter, you are making an informed choice, you feel she benefits from the vaccine fair enough, my nieces and nephews parents do not believe that they will benefit from the vaccine as it is their choice, children are the least effected by Covid and I stand by this.

Your last point, with your unwanted advice, I have considered it and I know I’m not spreading toxicity, maybe you should take your own advice and check your posts.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,896
I wasn't attempting to misrepresent anything. The reason I "cherry picked" that paragraph was to make the point that the CMOs can now, rather conveniently, advise in regard to the wider societal impacts of interventions whereas they previously claimed they couldn't. For the record I don't think the vaccines are high risk to children (or any group for that matter) but clearly the risk-benefit does change (which is the point I believe the JCVI made).
Thank you for the clarification, and I was not accusing you of misrepresentation.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,568
Well Wales has adopted them, I doubt it will be long before England falls in line.
 

westv

Established Member
Joined
29 Mar 2013
Messages
3,284
We are at 80% take up of both doses. Is there any evidence that the "passports" will increase that figure by any noticeable amount?
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
394
We are at 80% take up of both doses. Is there any evidence that the "passports" will increase that figure by any noticeable amount?

No - Look at the data between July 19th (when PM made his first announcement) and today - There has been no discernible uptick in demand.

Realistically to see an impact they would have to be much broader in scope than things like Nightclubs / big events which the majority of the currently unvaccinated wouldn't be impacted by anyway.

At least Wales has retained the option for a negative test unlike Scotland
 

DorkingMain

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2020
Messages
605
Location
London, UK
Well Wales has adopted them, I doubt it will be long before England falls in line.
Doubtful England would take a stance just because Scotland and Wales have. No evidence of this happening with mandatory mask wearing on public transport, for example.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,894
Location
East Midlands
At the sniff of any NHS trouble this particular mission will readily now creep.
We are at 80% take up of both doses. Is there any evidence that the "passports" will increase that figure by any noticeable amount?

In other places they are into the heavier hitting.
France has been well trailed. Italy have now implemented this:

ROME — Italy is to require the country's entire workforce to show a health passport or face suspension from work.

Italy’s 23 million public and private sector workers will have to show a so-called Green Pass — providing proof of vaccination, a negative test or recent recovery from infection — to avoid sanctions that also include fines of up to €1,500.


Note:
With Scotland and Wales now in, the thread title should be again changed! [please!]
 

Watershed

Established Member
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
2,695
Location
UK
At the sniff of any NHS trouble this particular mission will readily now creep.


In other places they are into the heavier hitting.
France has been well trailed. Italy have now implemented this:




Note:
With Scotland and Wales now in, the thread title should be again changed! [please!]
It's worth noting that all of the continental "vaccine" passports can also be obtained with a negative test from the previous 48 hours, or a positive test 14 days-6 months ago.

Of course, with tests lasting such a short period of time and now no longer being free in most European countries (unless you have symptoms), that still means vaccination is de facto mandatory to earn a living. Which utterly tramples over the long-held concept of healthcare being consent-based - because consent must, by definition, be voluntary and freely given.
 

Highlandspring

Established Member
Joined
14 Oct 2017
Messages
2,779
Well Wales has adopted them, I doubt it will be long before England falls in line.
The difference between the Welsh and Scottish schemes is that in Wales those who are not vaccinated will still be permitted entry on the basis of a recent negative test result whereas in Scotland this option is not deemed acceptable and only those who can prove they have been vaccinated with two doses for more than 14 days (and you must have recieved both of those doses in Scotland due to the vagaries of NHS Scotland’s systems) are permitted entry. The Scottish scheme is far more discriminatory, although of course any sort of ‘passport’ scheme is illogical and pointless.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
1,724
The difference between the Welsh and Scottish schemes is that in Wales those who are not vaccinated will still be permitted entry on the basis of a recent negative test result whereas in Scotland this option is not deemed acceptable and only those who can prove they have been vaccinated with two doses for more than 14 days (and you must have recieved both of those doses in Scotland due to the vagaries of NHS Scotland’s systems) are permitted entry.
A negative lateral flow test can be used in Wales but as we know Lateral Flow tests can be fiddled.
 

scotrail158713

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2019
Messages
1,667
Location
East Lothian
(and you must have recieved both of those doses in Scotland due to the vagaries of NHS Scotland’s systems)
I'd seen that as well and I have to say I'm disgusted at my own country for that state of affairs. It's not exactly the most welcoming policy to anyone from outwith Scotland. With universities now returning as well, with the multiple nationalities that brings, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.
 

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
15,343
Location
West of Andover
I can see nightclubs in Newcastle/Chester/Hereford/Carlisle/Bristol etc becoming popular with visitors from Wales/Scotland to avoid showing an app saying they have had the vaccine (but still can spread the virus)
 

GodAtum

On Moderation
Joined
11 Dec 2009
Messages
2,495
My friend who works in the British Embassy in Rome is planning to quit his job and come back to England if diplomatic staff are not exempt. He has the vaccine but wants his right to medical privacy respected.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Cheshunt
Not that they will be bothered but I am not going to go to Wales again. It is as simple as that.

I have to go to Scotland as I am Scottish and I have family but it will just be to visit them. I have two concerts booked in October they will be my last.
 
Last edited:

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
2,985
Location
Maidstone
The way things are going this thread is going to change its title more often than the Sugarbabes' line-up ;)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
13,568
Personally I've not been to Scotland and Wales in years, partially because I really do t want to get accosted with my stereotype English accent
 

DorkingMain

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2020
Messages
605
Location
London, UK
I'd seen that as well and I have to say I'm disgusted at my own country for that state of affairs. It's not exactly the most welcoming policy to anyone from outwith Scotland. With universities now returning as well, with the multiple nationalities that brings, I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.
I believe they said they were "looking into it" but really it's something crucial enough that it should be in place before the scheme is introduced.
 

Philip

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
2,365
Location
Manchester
Scotland and Wales are just playing sensible and there are arguments both for and against England implementing the system. However, the point is that increased transmission increases the risk of a new variant developing, which may or may not be one which evades the vaccines; the risk is increased with higher levels of infection.

If a vaccine-resistant strain did develop and we went back to having lockdowns until the vaccine had been redeveloped to provide protection then people would be crying outrage that governments hadn't put measures in place (like vaccine proof) to help guard against something like this - they can't win.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,098
Location
Cheshunt
Personally I've not been to Scotland and Wales in years, partially because I really do t want to get accosted with my stereotype English accent
All my English friends have all come back from Scotland and said with surprise (not to that I was) about how lovely everyone was

Scotland and Wales are just playing sensible and there are arguments both for and against England implementing the system. However, the point is that increased transmission increases the risk of a new variant developing, which may or may not be one which evades the vaccines; the risk is increased with higher levels of infection.

If a vaccine-resistant strain did develop and we went back to having lockdowns until the vaccine had been redeveloped to provide protection then people would be crying outrage that governments hadn't put measures in place (like vaccine proof) to help guard against something like this - they can't win.
Eh no. Back to the evading vaccine rubbish again I see. We’ve been over this before haven’t we, what if the sky falls in one day we should be building a dome....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top