Vaccine Passports/Permanent restrictions

[35B]

You clearly don't, as you think that those who make the "wrong" choice should be excluded from basic aspects of society.

The best precedents you've managed to come up with are some in the US (and we really don't want to emulate them, in many ways), and some very old cases.

Even if we take your point of public health (which I don't), this would still be grossly disproportionate - once all those at particular risk have been vaccinated (if they wish to be), there is no more reason to vaccinate everyone else than there would be to vaccinate everyone for flu.

I suggest you read what I’ve actually written about restrictions, and the choices each one of us has or will make about receiving this vaccine, as you misrepresent what I’ve written.

As regards the public health arguments, we need to agree to disagree on the thresholds for those interventions, or the necessity as a matter of public policy for mass vaccination to be achieved. However, the argument that such measures are unprecedented is self evidently false when those precedents do exist in liberal democratic societies.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, it's not a "ridiculous post". Your comment just highlights that people like you simply cannot see the harm which this vicious government is causing.

I don't care, you already lost your credibility by suggesting the government's intention was to invoke mass suicide to rid itself of a problem. Some of us still live in the real world, even though that world is very strange.

 

[notlob.divad]

the government isn't trying to coerce and bully them into going out on the lash

That seemed to me to be pretty much what 'eat out to help out' was last summer.

 

[AlterEgo]

That seemed to me to be pretty much what 'eat out to help out' was last summer.

Getting £10 off was coercion to go and eat in the pub? Please!

 

[packermac]

Typical of the obnoxious, patronising response I expect from you. How dare you lecture me about "consequences" for not accepting a forced medical treatment. People like you are a danger to society as you enable this sort of fascist behaviour from the vile govermnent which is tightening its grip on this country ever more.

That is not a remotely obnoxious response. Yes it is your choice not to be vaccinated if you do not want to be, but you have to accept there is a fall out from that. Like anything in life you have to way the risk and reward. If the reward for not being vaccinated then the risk is your movements will be made more difficult. That is just life I am afraid, same as if you want to ride a motorcycle you need to wear a helmet, or a seat belt in a car. When they were introduced as laws it was the same old agreement "this restricts my freedom"
Yes I agree a fair solution needs to be found for those who cannot be vaccinated for valid medical reasons

 

[35B]

No, it's not a "ridiculous post". Your comment just highlights that people like you simply cannot see the harm which this vicious government is causing.



But that is balanced out by HIV being far more dangerous, and a lifelong condition. There is at least as strong a case for "HIV passports" as their is for "Covid passports", and that is absolutely not the way in which society should be heading.

Just on a point of detail, HIV is now manageable as a chronic condition and is not generally dangerous in the same acute way as Covid often is. Nor is it randomly transmissible in the way that Covid is.

However, if we are looking at parallels, I’d point out that people have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for recklessly or deliberately infecting others with HIV despite the absence of passports.

 

[notlob.divad]

Getting £10 off was coercion to go and eat in the pub? Please!

I guess sense of humour bypasses are almost as contagious as Covid-19.

 

[DB]

I suggest you read what I’ve actually written about restrictions, and the choices each one of us has or will make about receiving this vaccine, as you misrepresent what I’ve written.

If the "choice" is having the vaccine or being forced into a life of social exile, it's not much of a "choice", is it?

As regards the public health arguments, we need to agree to disagree on the thresholds for those interventions, or the necessity as a matter of public policy for mass vaccination to be achieved. However, the argument that such measures are unprecedented is self evidently false when those precedents do exist in liberal democratic societies.

There is no precedent for a mass vaccination of nearly a whole population against a disease which is not particularly dangerous, and where those who are at risk can be very clearly identified. Flu is the best comparator, and there has never been any suggestion of vaccinating the whole population against this - they just, sensibly, offer the vaccine to those who are actually at higher risk - and there is no compulsion: of some of those people choose not to have the vaccine, they don't get excluded from anything.

 

[35B]

If the "choice" is having the vaccine or being forced into a life of social exile, it's not much of a "choice", is it?



There is no precedent for a mass vaccination of nearly a whole population against a disease which is not particularly dangerous, and where those who are at risk can be very clearly identified. Flu is the best comparator, and there has never been any suggestion of vaccinating the whole population against this - they just, sensibly, offer the vaccine to those who are actually at higher risk - and there is no compulsion: of some of those people choose not to have the vaccine, they don't get excluded from anything.

You missed the word “most” from “those who are at risk”.

As for the choice, I agree. But it is still a free choice where you have the ability to decide your position.

 

[DB]

That is not a remotely obnoxious response. Yes it is your choice not to be vaccinated if you do not want to be, but you have to accept there is a fall out from that. Like anything in life you have to way the risk and reward. If the reward for not being vaccinated then the risk is your movements will be made more difficult. That is just life I am afraid, same as if you want to ride a motorcycle you need to wear a helmet, or a seat belt in a car. When they were introduced as laws it was the same old agreement "this restricts my freedom"
Yes I agree a fair solution needs to be found for those who cannot be vaccinated for valid medical reasons

Ah, another authoritarian who thinks it's fine to treat people like scum.

Absolutely nothing like a crash helmet or a seat belt as that is of proven benefit to the wearer and is a simple piece of equipment associated with doing something. It is nothing like effectively forced medical treatment.

 

[AlterEgo]

I guess sense of humour bypasses are almost as contagious as Covid-19.

Sorry, haven’t revived my vaccination against bad jokes.

 

[DB]

As for the choice, I agree. But it is still a free choice where you have the ability to decide your position.

It's typical of the "choice" the government has used throughout this situation - presenting a binary situation of "do you want this crap treatment or that crap treatment". They are relying on people not pushing back and saying, "neither, thanks". And the more they've got away with it, the more they've pushed it, cheered on by people like you.

I don't care, you already lost your credibility by suggesting the government's intention was to invoke mass suicide to rid itself of a problem. Some of us still live in the real world, even though that world is very strange.

They have introduced measures (e.g. masks) which are going to lead to people who cannot wear them being constantly bullied and harassed - many of whom will suffer from existing mental health conditions. There is no evidence for masks making much difference, but there is a lot of evidence for bullying causing suicides. Neither of these facts can be unknown to the government, so what is their motivation? At best, they are unconcerned about driving some people to suicide in order to project a sense of threat (which masks undoubtedly do) and to pander to the paranoid (most of whom have only become paranoid because of the government's previous fearmongering). At worst, they are happy to get rid of some of these people - after all, it will reduce the pressure on the NHS which seems to be one of their primary motivations.

Now they are trying to do similar with vaccines (yes, in this case they work - but any need to give them to people at low risk has absolutely not been demonstrated).

 

[LAX54]

Mitchells & Butlers has already said it doesn't like the idea. I saw various shop owners on news24 earlier saying that they'd happily let anyone in.

On the news it was discussed, and the pubs were generally against it, but a spokesman for the Theatre Industry was 'for it' saying it would go a great way to making the live Theatre sustainable.

It's typical of the "choice" the government has used throughout this situation - presenting a binary situation of "do you want this crap treatment or that crap treatment". They are relying on people not pushing back and saying, "neither, thanks". And the more they've got away with it, the more they've pushed it, cheered on by people like you.



They have introduced measures (e.g. masks) which are going to lead to people who cannot wear them being constantly bullied and harassed - many of whom will suffer from existing mental health conditions. There is no evidence for masks making much difference, but there is a lot of evidence for bullying causing suicides. Neither of these facts can be unknown to the government, so what is their motivation? At best, they are unconcerned about driving some people to suicide in order to project a sense of threat (which masks undoubtedly do) and to pander to the paranoid (most of whom have only become paranoid because of the government's previous fearmongering). At worst, they are happy to get rid of some of these people - after all, it will reduce the pressure on the NHS which seems to be one of their primary motivations.

Now they are trying to do similar with vaccines (yes, in this case they work - but any need to give them to people at low risk has absolutely not been demonstrated).

Then we go back to...If it was not for, at the outset, all the FB / Twitter posts harbouring doom and gloom, and the world is going to die, which was picked up by the 24/7 news channels, with hours to fill....would we be in the situation we are now, or would we have accepted that the 'flu' year was one of those really bad years that flare up once every so often ?

 

[DB]

On the news it was discussed, and the pubs were generally against it, but a spokesman for the Theatre Industry was 'for it' saying it would go a great way to making the live Theatre sustainable.

More falling for the false binaries again. It's not the virus which is stopping live theatre from being sustainable without any of this - it's government policy which is doing it.

Why is nobody calling the politicians and their henchmen out on this, given that they have specifically stated in the past that vaccines for those in the higher-risk groups would see an end to all restrictions?

 

[Ediswan]

Ediswan said:
So 54 million will get the vaccine offer as under 18 don’t get it. Those with allergies can’t take it and some others don’t take it maybe 20% maybe 5 million so what next?...

It was not me who said all that.

 

[DB]

Then we go back to...If it was not for, at the outset, all the FB / Twitter posts harbouring doom and gloom, and the world is going to die, which was picked up by the 24/7 news channels, with hours to fill....would we be in the situation we are now, or would we have accepted that the 'flu' year was one of those really bad years that flare up once every so often ?

Absolutely - this is as much a pandemic of the internet as of a virus! Unfortunately hardly any governments have been strong enough to stand up to it and stick to their existing pandemic plans (which the notable exception of Sweden - and the fact that they've fared no worse than any other country, and better than some with vicious lockdowns still seems to be ignored by most).

 

[LAX54]

More falling for the false binaries again. It's not the virus which is stopping live theatre from being sustainable without any of this - it's government policy which is doing it.

Why is nobody calling the politicians and their henchmen out on this, given that they have specifically stated in the past that vaccines for those in the higher-risk groups would see an end to all restrictions?

Think we all thought...did we not..that once all the 'oldies' and the 'extremely' vulnerable had been vaccinated, then life would return to normal, as the illness was for over 99% of people not serious ? We all know that of course with every illness there will be an exception to the rule, and I assume as the numbers are low, it is why they make Newspaper and TV headlines on how bad it all is ?

 

[jumble]

That is not a remotely obnoxious response. Yes it is your choice not to be vaccinated if you do not want to be, but you have to accept there is a fall out from that. Like anything in life you have to way the risk and reward. If the reward for not being vaccinated then the risk is your movements will be made more difficult. That is just life I am afraid, same as if you want to ride a motorcycle you need to wear a helmet, or a seat belt in a car. When they were introduced as laws it was the same old agreement "this restricts my freedom"
Yes I agree a fair solution needs to be found for those who cannot be vaccinated for valid medical reasons

There are plenty of seatbelt exemptions
We are not obliged to discuss with or justify to any private organisations why we are not wearing a helmet or seatbelt so I am afraid you are comparing apples with oranges
You are correct about finding a solution for medically exempt but how are you going to get around the fact that it is unacceptable for anyone in this country to have to prove to a security guard that they are disabled?
The answer is that it is not going to happen

 

[HSTEd]

If the government wants to compel vaccination, it should just admit it and do so.

Don't pretend being excluded from society until you "volunteer" is not constructive compulsion.

And it certainly shouldn't build a giant ID and monitoring infrastructure to ensure that those that have not obeyed its will are punished.

 

[Bikeman78]

It's typical of the "choice" the government has used throughout this situation - presenting a binary situation of "do you want this crap treatment or that crap treatment". They are relying on people not pushing back and saying, "neither, thanks". And the more they've got away with it, the more they've pushed it, cheered on by people like you.

It does seem that they have finally pushed it too far with this idea.

On the news it was discussed, and the pubs were generally against it, but a spokesman for the Theatre Industry was 'for it' saying it would go a great way to making the live Theatre sustainable.

Yes I read that too. Although the aim in the original roadmap in February was that almost all restrictions would cease in June. Presumably that was based on the likely success of the vaccine rather than the requirement for vaccine passports. Fortunately I hardly ever go to the theatre so I'm not bothered either way.

 

[Smidster]

That is not a remotely obnoxious response. Yes it is your choice not to be vaccinated if you do not want to be, but you have to accept there is a fall out from that. Like anything in life you have to way the risk and reward. If the reward for not being vaccinated then the risk is your movements will be made more difficult. That is just life I am afraid, same as if you want to ride a motorcycle you need to wear a helmet, or a seat belt in a car. When they were introduced as laws it was the same old agreement "this restricts my freedom"
Yes I agree a fair solution needs to be found for those who cannot be vaccinated for valid medical reasons

To play Devil's advocate the "fall-out" is, and should only be, that you remain vulnerable to the disease.

I am fundamentally opposed to this sort of coercion - If somebody doesn't wish to take a medical intervention they should have that right and not be then basically be removed from society - even more so after everyone has been given the opportunity to have a vaccine where, albeit with a small number of exceptions, it is only those who opt-out who remain vulnerable.

Vaccines are undoubtedly wonderful things so persuade by all means but this really does feel like a few steps too far and for zero appreciable gain.

 

[Yew]

Vaccines are undoubtedly wonderful things so persuade by all means but this really does feel like a few steps too far and for zero appreciable gain.

Who cares about measurable advantages when there's political reputation at stake...

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest that 'vaccine passports' be applied to the normal flu each year. Once the infrastructure is in place, easy enough to extend it's scope.

Perhaps the control freaks will next suggest some kind of centralised electronic messaging system, clearly visible in the centre of town, where those not having taken up the generous offer of a vaccine can be publicly named and shamed. Similarly their credit card could be declined at the shop till because they are not supposed to be out of their homes in their unvaccinated state. Beyond that they could build some large NHS institutions on the edges of towns to house all the unvaccinated, for their own good and that of wider society. Such happened, not all that long ago, to single mothers who refused to give up their children for adoption, as they were clearly 'insane'.

 

[Bikeman78]

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest that 'vaccine passports' be applied to the normal flu each year. Once the infrastructure is in place, easy enough to extend it's scope.

I'm struggling with how passports would even work. People in their 20s are going to be at the back of the queue every time a new version of the vaccine comes out. Would they be banned from pubs etc. for six months until they have the latest version? Or will the passports be suspended for six months until everyone is vaccinated rendering the whole thing rather pointless?

 

[Darandio]

I'm struggling with how passports would even work. People in their 20s are going to be at the back of the queue every time a new version of the vaccine comes out. Would they be banned from pubs etc. for six months until they have the latest version? Or will the passports be suspended for six months until everyone is vaccinated rendering the whole thing rather pointless?

Not if you look at posts from earlier today, apparently an alternative to a vaccination certification will be two tests taken three days apart before entry is allowed which is in itself absurd given how much planning you'd have to do just to go for a simple pint.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm just waiting for someone to suggest that 'vaccine passports' be applied to the normal flu each year. Once the infrastructure is in place, easy enough to extend it's scope.

Perhaps the control freaks will next suggest some kind of centralised electronic messaging system, clearly visible in the centre of town, where those not having taken up the generous offer of a vaccine can be publicly named and shamed. Similarly their credit card could be declined at the shop till because they are not supposed to be out of their homes in their unvaccinated state. Beyond that they could build some large NHS institutions on the edges of towns to house all the unvaccinated, for their own good and that of wider society. Such happened, not all that long ago, to single mothers who refused to give up their children for adoption, as they were clearly 'insane'.

You're not ambitious enough. You need to think further outside the box. Its not just medical issues you could handle, but financial, social and even political failings could be dealt with. So for example if someone owed Big Bro..., erm the government money you could restrict what they would be allowed to buy. Or if they had a tendency to go out a lot restrict their hours, or if they showed dissent towards the government's policies they could be liquida...., erm re-educated.....

To be honest all of this reminds me of one of my favourite Sci-Fi films, Equilibrium starring Christian Bale. If you haven't seen it, its well worth a watch. It doesn't directly deal with virus pandemics, but does address the issue of mandatory use of medical interventions to deal with a societal (or perceived) problem.

 

[Bikeman78]

Not if you look at posts from earlier today, apparently an alternative to a vaccination certification will be two tests taken three days apart before entry is allowed which is in itself absurd given how much planning you'd have to do just to go for a simple pint.

It's too ludicrous to be true. Also I spend far more time in work than the pub so I guess we'll need passports to go to work?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I'm struggling with how passports would even work. People in their 20s are going to be at the back of the queue every time a new version of the vaccine comes out. Would they be banned from pubs etc. for six months until they have the latest version? Or will the passports be suspended for six months until everyone is vaccinated rendering the whole thing rather pointless?

Plus how they work with people who have natural immunity (from previous exposure or time since jab-jab, or version / effectiveness of whichever jab), slowly decaying. Like radioactivity, will your passport have a half-life, after which you can go into the pub, but only for an hour at 1m distance, and then a further half-life where you are limited to 30 minutes at 2m distance. Some kind of shrill alarm alerting other customers to step away from you and the pub bouncers to evict you at the relevent cut-off point. Yes, I know some employers have actually started introducing 'proximity' technology. Bonkers, absolutely bonkers.

Plus how long passes between 'being pregnant' and thus immune from vaccination requirement, to giving birth and having to get vaccinated before you can go to the pub for your 'baby shower' (whatever they are!).

 

[joncombe]

Not if you look at posts from earlier today, apparently an alternative to a vaccination certification will be two tests taken three days apart before entry is allowed which is in itself absurd given how much planning you'd have to do just to go for a simple pint.

There are other implications if it is to be done by smart phone app.

What if you don't have one? I hardly think the Government is going to buy everyone a phone.
What if your phone is not compatible with the app? (e.g. an old version)?
What if you lose it or it's stolen?
The battery runs out?
You break it (e.g. drop it and the screen breaks)?
You lose connection (e.g. out of data for the month)
You are somewhere with no mobile signal (yes, there are pubs in such places) or no signal on your own network?

So if you are without your phone or a working phone you are not able to participate in society until you get a new phone. Now imagine if it applies to supermarkets and you need to buy food......

 

[Baxenden Bank]

You're not ambitious enough. You need to think further outside the box. Its not just medical issues you could handle, but financial, social and even political failings could be dealt with. So for example if someone owed Big Bro..., erm the government money you could restrict what they would be allowed to buy. Or if they had a tendency to go out a lot restrict their hours, or if they showed dissent towards the government's policies they could be liquida...., erm re-educated.....

To be honest all of this reminds me of one of my favourite Sci-Fi films, Equilibrium starring Christian Bale. If you haven't seen it, its well worth a watch. It doesn't directly deal with virus pandemics, but does address the issue of mandatory use of medical interventions to deal with a societal (or perceived) problem.

I was thinking of 'Enemy of the State' where the stable, affluent life of the Will Smith character (unknowing carrier of secret film showing a murder) is destroyed, where the tables are then turned on the congressman.