I imagine that they will have a way where your GP can mark you as unable to receive the vaccine, which would show in the NHS app and effectively work as an exemption.
Well i think it's good.I wouldn't say that this is necessarily a bad thing, as everyone knows excessive alcohol consumption isn't good.
Do you really want to have your church or corner shop with a turnstile at the door that will only open when presented with a valid document, mandatory for the premises to operate?
I don’t think the [track and trace] app itself is necessarily the issue - what it does currently is fairly benign - but it is conditioning us to a behaviour of getting permission to enter places, where previously we would be expected to be able to enter freely unless there was a good reason not to.
The logical next step will be for the app (this one or another) to show whether we are *allowed* into places, based on whether we’ve passed a test recently and/or been vaccinated.
We have one of those hand-held scanners at our work place. You get a different reading every time you get it to take your temperature. So it’s hard to tell how reliable they are. Also everyone has a slightly different reaction to viruses. An elevated body temperature indicates that your body is trying to fight an infection. But whether your body temperature does rise, and by how much, varies between each individual…Somebody on another thread said they went to London City Airport and temperature checks were in use, presumably via one of those hand-held scanners. Though not infallible, surely if we want to prevent potentially infected individuals from entering a venue, these would be a more logical, efficient and quick way to minimise risk?
Unlikely with cases down to lowest in over a month but hospitalisations are still going up so we aren't on a home run just yet.I absolutely oppose vaccine passports; they are very damaging and should not be introduced, especially not pre-emptively or as part of some sort of zero-Covid ideology.
But if we are about to (re-)introduce interventions (such as masks, business closures or lockdowns) - and I hope we don't, and would argue against them even in the face of pretty high case rates/hospitalisations - then I would argue that vaccine passports must come before those. I would note that many of the MPs listed in post #9 strongly support those interventions.
I have no interest in going to a heritage railway whilst this persists. The two best lines are about 90 minutes drive away. I tend to stay out all day and cover every loco. I'll probably stop off for lunch and a pint somewhere. Also I like to sit close to the loco so pre assigned seats are of no interest to me unless I get to pick the seat. If heritage railways can turn a profit with pre bookings only then good luck to them. I have plenty of other things to do.I don't think it's nutcase territory at all.
It's already the case now that visiting a heritage railway in some cases requires pre-booking (via a bank card), turning up at a specific time, being allocated a specific seat, being told to do certain things such as wearing a mask, and not to mention having the compartment wiped down afterwards to remove one's filthy germs to make it "clean" for everyone else.
I for one don't wish to live like this, and if we're not careful this is exactly how some things are going to go, as there's people who seem to love all this.
We shouldn't just dismiss this as nutcase territory, as elements of it could very easily happen if we sleepwalk our way there.
If this gets through any vote, the most likely downfall of vaccine passports will be the government's inability to organise them efficiently.Vaxx passports to attend university….never have I hated a government more than this one, the Commuservatives should be the name of this party
If this gets through any vote, the most likely downfall of vaccine passports will be the government's inability to organise them efficiently.
That isn't what's planned at all. The government has already mentioned night clubs "and other crowded indoor spaces such as pubs and restaurants" and on Sunday they were reported to have been in negotiation with the English Premier League about adopting such a scheme for entry to football matches. No doubt shops, supermarkets, public transport and hospitals will be next.It is quite scary the scope of some of these across the Continent - makes our plan to only target people who go clubbing to be relatively tame by comparison.
That isn't what's planned at all. The government has already mentioned night clubs "and other crowded indoor spaces such as pubs and restaurants" and on Sunday they were reported to have been in negotiation with the English Premier League about adopting such a scheme for entry to football matches. No doubt shops, supermarkets, public transport and hospitals will be next.
The whole concept is disgusting.
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.Vaxx passports to attend university….never have I hated a government more than this one, the Commuservatives should be the name of this party
That is dodgy, this needs to be squashed pronto. Also, how does it work at somewhere like St James' Park, Newcastle, where there is a major thoroughfare (Strawberry place) immediately past the stadium.That isn't what's planned at all. The government has already mentioned night clubs "and other crowded indoor spaces such as pubs and restaurants" and on Sunday they were reported to have been in negotiation with the English Premier League about adopting such a scheme for entry to football matches. No doubt shops, supermarkets, public transport and hospitals will be next.
The whole concept is disgusting.
The Nuremberg Code does not have legal force and has been replaced by other codes of medical ethics. It is also about the conduct of medical experiments - not medical treatment.People sue on discrimination grounds as a result and no one wants to be seen as that, what the government is proposing goes against the Nuremberg code, plus I think people would crowdfund on venues being sued at this point.
The Nuremberg Code does not have legal force and has been replaced by other codes of medical ethics. It is also about the conduct of medical experiments - not medical treatment.
The use of the reference (and especially Shemirani's vilespeechrant at the weekend) is a deliberate piece of dog whistle rhetoric to try to create a mental link between vaccines and Nazi concentration camp experiment.
As for discrimination, to the best of my understanding the government's policies provide exemption for those with medical reasons why they can't be vaccinated.
I've no problems with arguments about whether or not vaccines should be compulsory; it's a matter that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on. I actually agree with you that, if they are to be compelled, it should be through primary legislation and not backdoor procedural moves. Similarly, I'd agree with you that any use of medicines carries a level of risk - which is why informed consent is an important principle - and that doctors can rarely if ever be certain of the outcomes of following a particular protocol. I would suggest though that this goes well beyond the "experimental" stage, and is a recognition that humans are complex organisms, and the reactions to treatment can be similarly complex.The only guaranteed immunity relating to a vaccine is legal immunity for the company that produces it.
Oh and sorry if you do not like it, but the link is valid. You can ask people nicely but if they decline then it is time to turn a blind eye. The Bentham-ite "greatest happiness" doctrine is immoral in practice when it involves asking people to take risks that they would not otherwise do.
Also, without a direct act of parliament, there are other laws that could work against a vaccine passport than disability (data protection and harassment).
P.S. (Afterthought): No medical treatment will ever be completely risk free, nor does it cease to be completely experimental.
Consent to treatment means a person must give permission before they receive any type of medical treatment, test or examination.
For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.
The meaning of these terms are:
- voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family
- informed – the person must be given all of the information about what the treatment involves, including the benefits and risks, whether there are reasonable alternative treatments, and what will happen if treatment does not go ahead
- capacity – the person must be capable of giving consent, which means they understand the information given to them and can use it to make an informed decision
Where Covid vaccines are concerned, I'd suggest that a government lawyer might argue that consent to a vaccination is informed because the person refusing is aware that if they do not accept the vaccination, those are the consequences. I think that interpretation would fly by the letter of the law, but not the spirit.Just a reminder of the definition of informed consent, as set out by the NHS:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/consent-to-treatment/
It doesn't explicitly mention 'coersion by the government' - presumably because no-one would have ever expected we'd get to the stage where we have open coersion by the government for people to take medical treatments that they don't need - but the intent is clearly there.
The Nuremberg Code does not have legal force and has been replaced by other codes of medical ethics. It is also about the conduct of medical experiments - not medical treatment.
The use of the reference (and especially Shemirani's vilespeechrant at the weekend) is a deliberate piece of dog whistle rhetoric to try to create a mental link between vaccines and Nazi concentration camp experiment.
As for discrimination, to the best of my understanding the government's policies provide exemption for those with medical reasons why they can't be vaccinated.
And as I have said a number of times, a variety of courts in a variety of jurisdictions have found that such compulsion is permissible under human rights law. Unless you are going to try to argue that Vallance and Whitty are equivalent to the defendants at the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg, and the vaccines equivalent to the atrocities for which those defendants were tried, then the comparison is, being charitable, false.Sorry but to force a person to take a medical procedure or lose your freedoms is coercion and is against the and against human rights and against freedom of choice, the Nuremberg code is extremely relevant I feel considering Western governments are actually proposing curtailing people’s freedoms!
Quite.And as I have said a number of times, a variety of courts in a variety of jurisdictions have found that such compulsion is permissible under human rights law. Unless you are going to try to argue that Vallance and Whitty are equivalent to the defendants at the Doctors Trial at Nuremberg, and the vaccines equivalent to the atrocities for which those defendants were tried, then the comparison is, being charitable, false.
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.
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):But it’s coercion and blackmail though, which I’m sure you’ll agree with me on
Coercion -Originally two words A 1a A tribute levied by freebooting Scottish chiefs in return for protection or immunity from plunder. b Any payment or other benefit extorted by threats or pressure, esp. by threatening to reveal a discreditable secret; the criminal action of seeking to extort such a payment or benefit; the use of threats or moral pressure. 2 Rent payable in cattle, labour, or coin other than silver. B Extort money from by blackmail, use threats or moral pressure against.
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.1 Constraint, restraint, compulsion; the controlling of a voluntary agent by force. 2 The faculty or power of coercing or punishing; the power to compel assent. 3 Government by force; the employment of force to suppress political disaffection and disorder. 4 Physical pressure; compression.