UKC

Vaccine passports - is there any longer a justification?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
 Hardonicus 20 Nov 2021

Given the latest understanding that viral load reduction with vaccines is fleeting, what is the justification for vaccine passports, mandatory vaccination and apartheid lockdowns? I would have thought that by now we would see policy align better with science as the latter becomes clearer in all areas related to Covid.

51
 rlrs 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

Interesting study linked above. Someone else can make a summary to prompt further duscussion, I'm watching the footie!

In reply to Hardonicus:

Because 10-20% of a population is quite a lot of people who are at risk of death, long covid, complications etc..  where even if they are only in hospital a week, they are using up bed space and staff time that could be spent on other illnesses. 

There is also the loss to the economy if folk are ill longer and work less etc..  

If folk aren't willing to share collective responsibility for the above, why should they be allowed to mass gatherings, public and private transport etc... it's irresponsible. 

Post edited at 19:21
13
 rlrs 20 Nov 2021
 wintertree 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

The viral load produced by an infected person is one small part of the puzzle; others are their risk of catching the virus (lower when vaccinated) and their risk of going to hospital and so contributing to healthcare overload (lower when vaccinated).  These points make the scientific case; one that grows even stronger after a 3rd dose.

I suspect that your problems are moral and ethical; so play the moral and ethical cards rather than mis-frame it as the science.

Ethically I'm appalled by a move to mandatory vaccination - this despite my obvious stance in strong favour of vaccination.  I'm more appalled still that there are no much better options on the table.

As the High Priestess Ahme said, "Alas, if he were brave, this would not be necessary."

Post edited at 19:26
1
 mik82 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I can think of a few justifications for vaccine passports:

- Vaccines still significantly reduce the risk of being infected if exposed so there is less chance of a venue/event causing a local outbreak.

- The last available study showed 72% of intensive care admissions in the UK were unvaccinated people. The unvaccinated are hence clogging up resources in hospital and disrupting the ability to do other things like major surgery that may require ITU beds. By excluding the unvaccinated you reduce the risk of them becoming infected and draining resources, as well as providing a "nudge" to get the vaccine.

I don't agree with mandatory vaccination, but clearly Austria's government must be exasperated by having to lock down, with all the cost that entails, due to people not getting vaccinated. In a European insurance-based healthcare system I wonder whether a better solution would be to add a non-vaccinated surcharge.

4
In reply to Hardonicus:

From an epidemiological point of view there’s probably a small benefit.

From an ethical point a view, I must admit I find it very distasteful.

We should be explaining the science and encouraging people to get jabbed - not trying to force people into getting jabbed.

20
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> We should be explaining the science and encouraging people to get jabbed - not trying to force people into getting jabbed.

Do you not think this has been done to death. One marginal case was pregnant women and that is now overwhelmingly clear that it is safe and sensible. The vaccine has been available for a year now with 100s millions vaccinated, possibily more. How many deaths as a consequence? If it were a deadly experiment you, me, everybody would know folks who were killed because of the vaccines. It would be everywhere. 

Those who resist now are either too thick and need govt intervention or alternatively,  are on the side of the weirdos, anti vaxxers, right wing nutjobs, conspiracy theorists or just plain belligerent (I wont be told what to do with my body brigade). The former I have some mild sympathy with. The latter, quite frankly, should be rounded up and sent to an unihabited island given the problems they are creating.

8
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

We have been, for nearly a year. 
 

we have a problem though when many people get their information about vaccines from social media bubbles which also tell them to distrust and disregard “mainstream”  media. 
 

Failing to get vaccine rates high enough to contain the virus poses an existential threat to countries. Ongoing pressure at the levels currently being seen on healthcare systems is impossible to sustain, staff just can’t work in a crisis without end; and the negative impact on economic growth if this drags on for years will turn providing an acceptable standard of living to the majority of citizens from a hard ask to an impossible one. And given that immunity fades, and the R0 of the Delta variant is though to be around 8, there is no end to this until vaccine rates are higher. 
 

I think political leaders are aware of this, and that they will probably be experiencing a rising sense of panic as attempts to improve vaccination rates by persuasion appear to have reached their limits. 
 

I don’t really see how governments can make vaccinations mandatory though, the practicalities of enforcement are impossible. But they can add surcharges on healthcare insurance for unvaccinated people to reflect the greater risks and costs they will incur, and employers can be given support in making it a condition of employment. Together these measures would go a long way to encouraging many of the currently unvaccinated, where it’s not yet a core part of their identity, to get it done

2
In reply to Hardonicus:

There's 3 ways to face a pandemic:

  1. Let the bodies pile high
  2. You must stay at home
  3. When you get the call, get the jab

1 is off the table, because civilization. Some countries are now giving you the option to choose between 2 and 3. I've gone with 3. I'm against mandatory vaccination so I'm glad that if someone prefers 2, they can stick with 2. You can come back out when this is all over. 

2
 wintertree 20 Nov 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> Failing to get vaccine rates high enough to contain the virus poses an existential threat to countries. 

I agree.  I keep banging the drum that the misinformation campaigns over covid in general and vaccination in particular are a clear national security threat.

2
In reply to wintertree:

> I agree.  I keep banging the drum that the misinformation campaigns over covid in general and vaccination in particular are a clear national security threat.

I'm past carrying about any unvaxed adults, but it's a shame for kids to be saddled with hopeless parents. 

3
 mrphilipoldham 20 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

It’s unfair to brand our own government as a national security threat.

1
 Misha 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Given the latest understanding that viral load reduction with vaccines is fleeting

Source?

Even if vaccination did not reduce transmission at all, it would still be the way out of this public health crisis because it massively reduces the risk of hospitalisation and death. Health systems are under great stress again due to the level of hospitalisations and ICU admissions and most of those people are unvaccinated. So healthcare for the vaccinated majority is impacted by the unvaccinated minority. Ultimately there is the risk of restrictions / lockdowns being brought in as that becomes the only way to cope with the healthcare stress.

So I’d say vaccination is the road to ‘freedom’ for all of us and anything done to encourage vaccination uptake is generally going to be a good thing (eg needing Covid passes for work and leisure).

2
 Misha 20 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> Ethically I'm appalled by a move to mandatory vaccination - this despite my obvious stance in strong favour of vaccination.  

I’m not appalled and in principle I don’t have an issue with it if other measures like Covid passes aren’t sufficient but I struggle to see how it can be made to work in practice. Perhaps chunky fines on a monthly basis. Edit - healthcare charges for the unvaccinated as others have suggested is another option. Would need to publicise the cost of a night in hospital and ICU. Seem to recall a non-ICU bed night is around £500.

Post edited at 22:03
4
 Hardonicus 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

Second post down youth.

9
 wintertree 20 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

> I'm past carrying about any unvaxed adults, but it's a shame for kids to be saddled with hopeless parents. 

It's important to recognise how carefully crafted and targeted some of the misinformation has been.  Sure, there's a few anti-vaccination people out there who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire, but many more have been deliberately manipulated, and as difficult as the results of that make things, I have some dim inkling of how they've been played.  I know that once or twice in my life I've been manipulated and played at times; and I'm a hard-core cynic.  People aren't perfect, and the failure to protect a significant number of people from misinformation that has brought parts of Europe to such drastic measures is a failure of state.

Regardless of how much I care for unvaccinated adults, it's also a shame for anyone who needs medical assistance, from a child with a broken leg to someone like my father in his last months; he passed a few years before Covid and as harsh as it is, I'm thankful that he didn't have to spend his final year of near-death in 2020.  It's also a shame for the medical staff who have to pick up the pieces as the pressure and the demand on them builds without yield and without end in sight, and builds, and builds, and builds.  I left my job partly to decompress from the changes Covid brought; I'm lucky - I could do so with a clear conscience and knowing others were there to step in to my place.  Not everyone is so lucky, and the pressure others will be putting themselves under in response to the situation is not good for them, at all.  These are capable, skilled, compassionate people with a lifelong interest in learning and giving and helping, and the only people holding their noses to the grindstone are themselves. I'm terrified about where this ends for our medical profession.

Stepping back to the kids, one of the very interesting aspect to this is that the government have made explicit a route for children to be vaccinated in the absence of parental consent.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-resources-for-schools/covid-19-vaccination-programme-for-children-and-young-people-guidance-for-schools

  • In secondary schools, some older children may be sufficiently mature to provide their own consent. This sometimes occurs if a parent has not returned a consent form but the child still wishes to have the vaccine on the day of the session. Every effort will be made to contact the parent to seek their verbal consent. The school has no role in this process.
  • This is a well established process which is used in other school-based vaccination programmes.

It was news to me that this protocol existed before Covid, but I'm very glad that we give our children some agency independent of their parents.  One thing being a parent is teaching me is that even from 4 years old the little buggers are perfectly capable of forming strongly independent opinions and challenging their parents on them.

3
 Misha 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I wouldn’t call 25% vs 38% marginal. Besides, this is for household contacts, where the risk of transmission is greatest. I’m other settings the difference could be greater. Anyway, the rest of my post stands. 

1
 Hardonicus 20 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I'm not attempting to misframe the science. The messaging propogated for a substantial period over the last year has been get vaxxed, it reduces transmission. I asked at the time on here where the evidence for that was and it was construed by some as an obvious by product of a primed immune system. The points about hospitalisation etc. are entirely valid, yet we don't seem to want to discuss the other key factors around this disease that are linked to morbidity such as being overweight. Should we consider passports for those in poor health, obese or over a certain age only? The inability of society to qualify true risk at this point in time due to 2 years of propoganda seems to me to be a most concerning long term outcome for us all

Post edited at 22:11
15
 wintertree 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

>  Edit - healthcare charges for the unvaccinated as others have suggested is another option

Ethically and morally we could only withdraw state support for Covid medical care based on vaccination status, as I think Singapore recently have.

But for some, this will just push those already on the edge into a deeper financial abyss that results in even more cost to healthcare from all the other consequences of debt and poverty.

Punishing people for making bad decisions about their own health is not productive.  Never has been, never will be.  This lies at the core of a decades long failure of drug policy in the UK and USA IMO.  It may be necessary to take short term action to protect the greater good that unavoidably and unintentionally has a punitive effect on those whose choices form part of the problem, but beyond that the only way to mend all this is through compassion, education and mutual respect.  

The root cause of the problem here is not those declining vaccination; the difference in declining rates in different nations shows this is not an intrinsic human property, but a learned one.  That makes the root cause a failure of state, and that's where the eventual solution has to lie.

Short term, it's rock and a hard place, and what that's going to do is turn neighbour on neighbour over the consequences of that failure of state, regardless of which bad way out is chosen.  

Failure of state starts not with failure of governance, but with the perversion of governance to serve those other than the people.

I'm very despondent over the last week's developments in Europe.  

Post edited at 22:18
 gethin_allen 20 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Having a very quick skim of the abstract suggest there are some significant differences in the rate that the viral load declines in vaccinated individuals. 

I have a few issues with the design of the experiment in that it's only within families and it includes young kids so that will skew transmissibility and not reflect the majority of real world interactions that results in infection. But I have no real suggestions for experimental design at this moment.

Another thing I dislike about the paper in itself is the way that the journal lists the qualifications of the authors, it's not the done thing as it suggests different contributions to the research.

 Hardonicus 20 Nov 2021
In reply to gethin_allen:

All valid critiques for sure, but let's consider the bigger picture i.e no concrete evidence of huge reduction of transmission through vaccination.

The policies being imposed  terms of restricting  personal autonomy are the essential concern.

13
 Misha 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I don’t think the messaging has focused solely on transmission. It’s also been about personal health. Now I get that people might take a view on their own health. However the reality is that the unvaccinated are unnecessarily clogging up healthcare and this is going to lead to more restrictions for all of us. I don’t think that’s acceptable. I couldn’t care less if the unvaccinated died in their droves if that had no impact on anyone else, because it’s their choice. However it does have an impact on everyone else.

Another significant point is that this research doesn’t take into account the impact of third doses.

3
 Misha 21 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Agree re failure of state and I get where you’re coming from. However the harsh reality is this. In the same way that there comes a point in healthcare overload where a government has no choice but to lock down, there also comes a point where a government has no choice but to force (one way or another) people to get vaccinated because there is no other way to get out of this mess for everyone. It remains to be seen whether this will be required in the UK. As we know, this is far from over yet…

3
In reply to wintertree:

> I agree.  I keep banging the drum that the misinformation campaigns over covid in general and vaccination in particular are a clear national security threat.

I think that's the wrong way to frame it.  We could end up solving a bad problem by creating a much worse one.  It is the same as with regulation of social media.  We need to remember who would make the rules and how unscrupulous and corrupt they are.

Right now, there is no logical reason not to get vaccinated. In January/February/March a reasonable person who wasn't in the highest risk category might have concluded they'd like to see more data. 

There have been times when the UK government has been given different and poorer scientific advice than other countries. Any kind of 'you aren't allowed to disagree with the science' rule would become 'you aren't allowed to disagree with the UK Government's scientists' then 'you aren't allowed to argue against the over-simplified version of the truth which the UK Government considers is helpful to get the desired behaviour of its citizens' and after that 'you aren't allowed to call the UK government ministers involved in buying PPE and vaccines corrupt.'

This isn't theoretical, on one occasion on Twitter I got an official note put against a post because I said a Tory minister was lying. If they had a national security law they could have deleted that post or prosecuted.

I also think vaccine mandate laws are potentially dangerous for future epidemics because the last thing you would want is to force everybody in a country to take the same jag and then find out later there was a problem with it.  We have a government with a penchant for taking risks in the hope of avoiding economically or politically difficult decisions.  If they had a choice between forcing everyone to take a brand new jag which might potentially have problems or having a lockdown to give them time to collect more data before going all out they'd take the chance.

Post edited at 04:04
5
 Kalna_kaza 21 Nov 2021
In reply to mik82:

It would be helpful if the reporting of covid deaths was broken down into vaccinated and unvaccinated when read out on the news to help push the benefits of being fully jabbed.

Also I would make it a rule that unvaccinated people in an ICU bed are liable for removal should a vaccinated person need it. 

I feel we must be very close to willing vaccine saturation unless there are some other realities to push people into doing the right thing.

2
 Wire Shark 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> We should be explaining the science and encouraging people to get jabbed - not trying to force people into getting jabbed.

You still think this is about science and education?  OK then.

Post edited at 04:53
3
In reply to Wire Shark:

> You still think this is about science and education?  OK then.

I think some feel it's like a form of protest, that has no consequences. They need to realise that there are, it's not a game, for many it's life and death. 

3
 kinley2 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

We've been lucky to grow up in a country where, while we may bear the personal health impact of lifestyle choices, we do not bear the medical costs and the concept that we should consider the societal cost of our healthcare impact has almost never been whispered...until now.

Now, in the NHS, routine care (clinics/ops) remains suspended leading to an accumulation of morbidity and mortality. Cancers are being diagnosed later with worse outcomes (and often far worse symptoms ime). Inpatient care provision is stretched to breaking point.

The societal cost of contributing to this by refusing a simple intervention to decrease the likliehood of hospitalistion is stark.

Society has limited (acceptable) tools to push back against adverse personal choice - we cannot refuse (Covid) healthcare to unvaccinated individuals, charging for Covid healthcare in that setting would be too great a step. Perhaps it would be nice to extract meaningful, significant Community Service from the unvaccinated to defray Healthcare costs of their unneeded Covid care, but I doubt that is in any way practicable.

Given all that, pushing hard to encourage vaccination by trading off liberty to engage in social activity for compliance in this measure does not seem to me to be unwarranted.

3
 girlymonkey 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

To any who are opposed to vaccine passports on ethical grounds, do you foresee any time you would consider it acceptable?

What if we ended up with a disease which was more deadly and more transmissible, but we were able to get an equally effective vaccine? What level of death and transmissibility would you say justifies such an action? Or would you never think it acceptable? 

I would feel much more confident to go places if passports were in place. I still won't go to any eating venues/ gigs etc. I only go indoor places where masks are worn and even then I'm still wary. The economy would get more money from me with passports in place. 

I don't feel very strongly that we definitely need them, but then the entertainment and hospitality sectors probably don't need my money either, I'm not a big spender. The lack of passports does limit what I will do though

5
 Hardonicus 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

The aggregate probability is reduced for non household transmission as you say, so the difference is cannot be greater.

If we are only concerned with hospilisations/deaths then we could have mandatory passports for those who are overweight and/or who have existing conditions. A fighting fit 42 year old who has looked after his health all his life has an absolutely negligible chance of serious impact from covid, what justification is there for imposing draconian restrictions in a blanket manner? It's appalling and the level of contrition amongst the public is also deeply worrying. I've said it before, but our ability to assess risk is screwed as a society.

14
 Hardonicus 21 Nov 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

We've already established that vaccination has a marginal benefit in terms of propagation so what are you worried about exactly?  Are you in a high risk category? I see your point as indicative of the skewed assessment of risk we seem to have. The fact that this type of viewpoint is evident on a climbing forum where one might expect to find a high standard of risk assessment capability is particularly concerning.

12
In reply to Hardonicus:

If we were going off risk of hospitalisation, over 65s wouldn’t be granted a passport - too risky to let them out even if they are double jabbed.

An unjabbed 20 something will be at lower risk of hospitalisation than a double/ triple jabbed 65 year old.

3
 girlymonkey 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Vaccines reduce the risk of you catching it, and you can't pass it on if you don't have it, and they do reduce transmission. They don't stop it, but they do reduce it. 

I mix with high risk people and I can't afford to lose out on work. Some of us don't get sick pay!

2
In reply to Hardonicus:

> The aggregate probability is reduced for non household transmission as you say, so the difference is cannot be greater.

> If we are only concerned with hospilisations/deaths then we could have mandatory passports for those who are overweight and/or who have existing conditions. A fighting fit 42 year old who has looked after his health all his life has an absolutely negligible chance of serious impact from covid, what justification is there for imposing draconian restrictions in a blanket manner? It's appalling and the level of contrition amongst the public is also deeply worrying. I've said it before, but our ability to assess risk is screwed as a society.

Who said they are draconian? Im all for personal freedoms and liberties but personally view them as sensible and common sense, not draconian. Im fully vaccinated so my personal freedoms are unlikely to be curtailed and having a simple app on my phone to produce evidence of such is no hardship.

Do you have car insurance? Do you understand why car insurance started? If not then I'll explain. It's to protect others in the event of your mistake not to protect you from hitting a wall, which was a later innovation. Whether reckless, neligent or simply carelessness the idea was to ensure others were compensated by your actions. You have to produce the certificate on request by the authorities - have you ever been stopped and failed to produce it, together with your licence - in order to have car driving liberties maintained and not doing so means you cannot have the privilege (which it is) to drive a motor vehicle on the roads, legally, without severe penalties. This is very analogous to vaccine passports in my view yet you happily comply without 'raging against the machine'.

You use the word draconian as an antivaxxer would. It's emotive and designed to elicit a response. Im not sure using the word contrition is correct either. It's common sense, civic minded and necessary to be vaccinated - are you anti vaccine or anti passport, or both as your language seems unclear.

Your example is flawed too. Your 42 year old fit and healthy individual perfectly describes my wife's ex colleague. Contracted COVID last month, now dead. 

7
In reply to Hardonicus:

> A fighting fit 42 year old who has looked after his health all his life has an absolutely negligible chance of serious impact from covid, what justification is there for imposing draconian restrictions in a blanket manner? 

Someone with that attitude is far more likely to be a complete dick when they do get it and spread it around to people who aren't being total dicks, do it's easily justified in my mind.

Edit to add: 42 isn't that young. Definitely into the riskier age bands there. Negligible chance is absolutely not where you're at.

Post edited at 09:45
3
 mik82 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

>An unjabbed 20 something will be at lower risk of hospitalisation than a double/ triple jabbed 65 year old.

Not an order of magnitude lower though - case/hospitalisation rate 1.1% for unvaccinated 18-29 year olds compared to 1.9% for vaccinated 60-69 year olds. 

Double the absolute number of unvaccinated 18-29 year olds in ITU than vaccinated 60-69 year olds on the last report - so definitely a burden, even if the risk is low. 

3
 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Vaccines reduce the risk of you catching it, and you can't pass it on if you don't have it, and they do reduce transmission. They don't stop it, but they do reduce it. 

A point I think can only be wilfully missed when people jump straight to “viral load”…

> I mix with high risk people and I can't afford to lose out on work. Some of us don't get sick pay!

I certainly understand where you’re coming from given what you’ve shared over your employment - both in terms of those you support and guessing what the consequences of you having to isolate from covid would be for yourself.  

The biggest factor putting me off exposure to covid at the moment is the consequences an isolation order would have.  Second biggest is not wanting to risk exposing the children’s sole grandparent.  

1
In reply to wintertree:

Im just waiting for the tests from any long term side effects from the jab......

5
In reply to Juicymite86:

> Im just waiting for the tests from any long term side effects from the jab......

Well while you wait you can sign up for the trial on long term effects of the virus. No action required, you're auto enrolled.

 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I think the biggest problem which has so far remained unaddressed is that even if you introduce them as some sort of societal 'punishment' for not getting vaccinated, you aren't actually going to stop any spread. Does anyone honestly think those ineligible for access to cinema/restaurant/pub are going to sit at home on their own? They'll still be mixing, still be spreading. Calling them selfish is unwise, it'll lead to further withdrawal from public spiritedness. I must admit I'm a tad disappointed with the tone of quite a few posters on here. It's Brexit all over again, and look how that turned out for everyone. No one ever learns. 

2
In reply to Hardonicus:

>  A fighting fit 42 year old who has looked after his health all his life has an absolutely negligible chance of serious impact from covid 

"if vaccinated" was missed off the end there.

I think many 30, 40 and 50 year olds who discovered they weren't as fighting fit as they though in the last 2 years will disagree with you. Many today think they are healthy because they had a salad once and watch the Olympics. 

Covid seems to attack pretty much anywhere within the body, it's seem if you have any under lying condition or weakness, known or unknown then folk are in for a rougher time. Whilst everyone counts deaths, the long term effects on survivors health and future vulnerabilities is still barely considered.  

Post edited at 09:56
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

It’s not though, is it?

you can’t die from Brexit

 timjones 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> The aggregate probability is reduced for non household transmission as you say, so the difference is cannot be greater.

> If we are only concerned with hospilisations/deaths then we could have mandatory passports for those who are overweight and/or who have existing conditions. A fighting fit 42 year old who has looked after his health all his life has an absolutely negligible chance of serious impact from covid, what justification is there for imposing draconian restrictions in a blanket manner? It's appalling and the level of contrition amongst the public is also deeply worrying. I've said it before, but our ability to assess risk is screwed as a society.

Surely the good thing is that we all have that choice and if a hospitiality venue feels that their business is suffering due to a lack of confidence amongst their customers they can make the choice to request vaccine certificates?

1
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

There are those who genuinely can't be vaccinated, or the effectiveness of the vaccine is lower because of other medical treatments, why should they be put at greater risk because of idiot anti vaxers who just see this as another cause to latch onto. 

Some folk are just plain stupid, I've heard some list conditions as an excuse for not being vaccinated which would actually make them seriously ill if they caught covid. 

Plus what right does some anti vaxer nutters have to start preaching and influencing other people's kids. They should be jailed, just like with the mmr jab they are literally endangering lives.

1
 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I was talking about the discussion surrounding the issue, as you well know. 

5
 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Those people are at risk regardless. If they wish to increase that risk by visiting a crowded place then that is their decision. 

Yep, some folk are just plain stupid, I wholly agree. 

I don't really know what to say to the last point. I don't think anyone should be proactively trying to influence anyone else. 

5
In reply to timjones:

> Surely the good thing is that we all have that choice and if a hospitiality venue feels that their business is suffering due to a lack of confidence amongst their customers they can make the choice to request vaccine certificates?

From 1 Dec in sweden event organisers can operate covid passport schemes for indoor events over 100 people. If they don't then the health guidelines mean they'll have a max attendance based on area and distancing. Venues have a choice and so do customers, they can always stay at home or be vaccinated. There is a tiny bit of resistance to it, but not much, just a bit of grumbling over coffee, then folk will get on with it! 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Those people are at risk regardless. If they wish to increase that risk by visiting a crowded place then that is their decision. 

Isn't it part of a collective responsibility in society to help each other, we all pay tax into a pot for things we might never personally need. Being vaccinated at birth helps protect us and everyone else long term. It also reduces work place absences, hospital pressure etc.. 

This allows the genuinely vulnerable to enjoy a more normal life, any of us could be unfortunate and find we become one of those vulnerable people, how would you feel about anti vaxers then? 

> I don't really know what to say to the last point. I don't think anyone should be proactively trying to influence anyone else. 

Plenty anti vaxers protesting outside schools, they aren't their kids, it should be some offence.

1
 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Yes. You shouldn't assume that all in society want protecting. For instance, I work in professional sport. There was much talk before football stadiums reopened about people being cautious in returning to the grounds and we might see low crowd numbers for a while until confidence builds. Well, that turned out to be nonsense. Fans have returned in their droves, and average attendance is actually higher now at some clubs. I've probably been within spitting distance of around 500,000 people over the last 4 months, and naturally you get involved and friendly with familiar faces. The amount of times I've heard "I'd rather die than miss this again" (or words to that effect) in that time has come as no surprise whatsoever. A lot of this from the vulnerable, given they tend to be seated closest to where I work. 

Now I agree, there is often no forethought as to what strain they would put on the health service were they to come down with Covid (or any other nasty illness, for that matter) caught at a football match. But that's the point I'm making.. society does accept risk, and continues to, and more or less to hell with the consequences. Is that right? Is it right that we demand they pay attention to risk and do something about it? Who knows. I'm only trying to inject a little real world discussion in to the damn and be damned that's become prevalent on here.

I think I read (and would quite like to find it again to confirm but I'm off to work in a mo) that responses to the proposals that care workers should face mandatory vaccination were met with a consensus of 'no' from all involved in the care system, including service users. The government obviously went ahead with it anyway, and rightly or wrongly it remains to be seen, but I think people need to get past the belief that everyone wants to feel as safe as possible. It's most certainly not always the case. 

Yes, the anti vaxxers outside schools makes me feel somewhat uncomfortable too. 

6
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

But they’re not the same discussion though. Brexit was about economics and identity, and which to prioritise. This was largely in the abstract- how do you measure identity?- and the economic debate relies on comparison with a counter factual state we can’t ever actually know for sure. It is also a British only issue, we can’t look around the world to see examples of other places doing things differently and getting different results 

Covid vaccination is literally a matter of life and death; with the effects of people’s decisions not to get vaccinated evident in every day’s admission and death rates, and the NHS Conferderation’s warnings that we are in for a bleak winter. We also have the experience of the rest of the world to look at. 
 

These are not the same situations, and the comparison with Brexit is meaningless; we have a safe and highly effective vaccine that people are rejecting for scientifically illiterate or ideologically unpleasant reasons, and their choices will lead to many thousands of deaths. 
 

There is a clear right side and wrong side in this one. Trying to muddy the waters by saying this is like a different situation where people fell out over abstract concepts and contested economic forecasts isn’t helpful.

1
 elsewhere 21 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

These people would be shining torches up at German bombers during the blackout saying "the Luftwaffe doesn't exist, it's all a great conspiracy, the deaths are due to gas explosions, the chances of being hit are negligible, if you go into your shelter my torch is no risk on you".

1
 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Again, you’ve completely ignored my point. I said the tone of conversation. The us and them. Demonisation. It didn’t win over the leave voters and it won’t win over those unvaccinated. 

4
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

https://www.nhsconfed.org/news/nhs-has-reached-tipping-point-warn-healthcare-leaders


An ambulance leader said: “Our ability to respond to immediate life-threatening calls means some patients will die.”
 

this isn’t about individual risk. It’s about living in a country where, when you call an ambulance in a medical emergency, one comes. Thats what is at stake here. Every person rejecting the vaccine because of conspiracy or contrarianism is tipping is further towards the breakdown of healthcare. That’s why people are angry, and why governments will take coercive steps- because no one wants to be in the history books as the leader of the administration who pandered to the selfish while the bodies piled high.

Post edited at 10:36
1
 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I know this. I’m not here to argue against it.
 

I merely popped in to say that calling people anti vaxxers is about as productive as calling them gammons. It’ll make the situation worse, not better. If you can’t see that then.. *shrugs shoulders*
 

Post edited at 10:44
4
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

There’s been a year to win them over. That ship’s sailed. The reality is that senior politicians are looking at reports like the one I linked, and know their administration won’t survive the headlines. Coercive measures of some sort are inevitable 

 girlymonkey 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

No one interested to say whether they would ever consider a vaccine passport ethical and in what circumstances?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, genuinely interested to know people's thoughts on it. 

I have stated my position that I am ok with the concept, and the lack of does alter my decisions on where I go. But I am not actively calling for them. I am ok with not meeting a friend in a cafe for lunch. A little sad at missing Celtic connections, but ready to accept it. 

Are there circumstances where any of you who are anti-passports would accept it necessary and ethical? What are they?

 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

If you pay any attention to any anti vax material you’ll know that they’ve felt coerced (or lied to, same thing?) since the roll out began. 

 wbo2 21 Nov 2021
In reply to GirlyMonkey: I have one and I've had to use it.

My ethical argument is that it helps allows for the majority of society and the economy to remain while allowing those who choose to remain unvaccinated can do so. Not conceptually difficult at all

In reply to girlymonkey:

To be honest I can’t really think of any circumstances where I’d consider vaccine passports appropriate. You don’t get asked for your HIV status when you go to the climbing wall (despite the risk of bloody flappers)? You don’t have a flu vaccine passport? In general we don’t ask for people health status in this country (which is a good thing).

What I find odd about the people who want vaccine passports is that they can never define why they want them.

In my mind either you want 1) vaccine passports to reduce transmission in events where they are applied or 2) to reduce the burden on the NHS by compelling people to get vaccinated.

If you want 1, you can still spread Covid when you’re vaccinated, you’re going to be exposed eventually anyway ect. It seems mildly beneficial, but does this outweigh the privacy/ societal issue - not too me.

If you want 2, there can’t be many unvaccinated people left who haven’t been infected (giving them immunity) and at the moment Covid itself isn’t putting massive pressure on the NHS (it’s everything else).

I suspect most people don’t actually want 1 or 2, they just want to be part of a collective punishment for a tiny minority of unvaccinated people.

16
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Yes. For many it has unfortunately been wrapped up into part of their identity. They are not going to be reached by persuasion. 
 

For others, it’s a softer position, but they’ve still had plenty of time for evidence and encouragement to shift them. The luxury of that time has run out. Asking nicely, several times, hasn’t worked. Consequences- losing employment, facing higher insurance costs in countries which operate that sort of healthcare system, losing access to some aspects of society- will persuade many. This has already happened in many parts if that bastion of individual rights, the US. Healthcare providers, federal government funded jobs and the military have compulsory vaccination. Very few decide to take unemployment over the jab. 
 

is that a desirable state of affairs? Absolutely not. It’s further polarising an already fractured society, and there will be costs down the line. But that’s where we are: trying to pick the least damaging option from a range of bad alternatives. And many people get this, and are angry at those forcing this choice to be made- because the choice *does* have to be made- both from the cost in lives, and the corrosion it causes  to civil society

1
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Wearing a seat belt impacts no one but the user? It's now accepted by all, just about.

'I rather die than miss this', most I suspect would change their mind when they are told they are being put into a coma to be artificially ventilated and have to say goodbye to their family and friends.

1
 timjones 21 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

> From 1 Dec in sweden event organisers can operate covid passport schemes for indoor events over 100 people. If they don't then the health guidelines mean they'll have a max attendance based on area and distancing. Venues have a choice and so do customers, they can always stay at home or be vaccinated. There is a tiny bit of resistance to it, but not much, just a bit of grumbling over coffee, then folk will get on with it! 

Unless my calendar is broken we haven't got to Dec 1st yet

In reply to timjones:

> Unless my calendar is broken we haven't got to Dec 1st yet

Nope, your calendar is functioning fine, it was a 2 week warning to premises that they either accept the system or have reduced attendances, it also gives those who haven't been jabbed chance. No excuses on anyone's part then.

The more subtle part is by the press talking about it, it reminds folk that covid is still out there and caution is needed.  

Edit. It's partly because of Xmas, there will be a lot of work place and family julbords in restaurants (massive Xmas buffet), perfect spreader locations. 

Post edited at 11:30
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

 I suspect most people don’t actually want 1 or 2, they just want to be part of a collective punishment for a tiny minority of unvaccinated people.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ad_hominem

classy stuff.

Post edited at 11:30
4
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> To be honest I can’t really think of any circumstances where I’d consider vaccine passports appropriate. You don’t get asked for your HIV status when you go to the climbing wall (despite the risk of bloody flappers)? You don’t have a flu vaccine passport? In general we don’t ask for people health status in this country (which is a good thing).

No, but the world and society is full of scenarios where evidence of something gives access to something else at the exclusion of others. I can't imagine any situation where an employer would give me a job as a forklift truck driver without my certification. I have never driven one and would probably damage something or someone.

More closely linked, I can't get served in a pub if I look under 21, or in some cases 25. If I was lucky enough to be baby faced, my driving licence or ID badge would be certificate of access. No biggie.

> What I find odd about the people who want vaccine passports is that they can never define why they want them.

I can. Because I want to continue with an open economy, an open economy where I can spend time in enclosed spaces over the winter with similarly like minded people. People who accept that whilst imperfect, vaccinations are the best tool we have to keep the economy and our beleaguered NHS afloat.

I think the word 'passports' give a poor impression. The NHS app, which is my evidentiary tool to show full vaccination, should perhaps be renamed. The weirdness of not wanting to prove vaccination befuddles me. Im quite proud of the fact; it makes me feel good that I'm doing my bit.

Much more effective than clapping the front line workers, which I refused to do.

Post edited at 11:55
1
 wbo2 21 Nov 2021
In reply to various:: if you've refused to take a vaccination,  then get hospitalised , do you  think you should pay for your self inflicted situation?  I wondered if its similar to any other accident, but here you are , or should be, that an infection is very likely . 

Covid insurance for the actively unvaccinated. 

Some countries are now doing this b.t.w. 

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I suspect most people don’t actually want 1 or 2, they just want to be part of a collective punishment for a tiny minority of unvaccinated people.

nobody is being punished. Some fringe elements are self selecting themselves from society.

1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Well why do you want them?

I assume you’re based in Europe given that you keep talking about running out of time.

In the UK (thanks to our high vaccination rates in more vulnerable group and high levels of natural immunity) we’re in a markedly different position to most.

I do agree that there will be some benefit, but it will be tiny.

For example - I’m in a pub having a meal. I’ve shown my vaccine passport to get in. A couple come in with two toddlers and sit next to me. Mum and Dad show their passports (the kids haven’t been jabbed). Everyone in the pub gets exposed to Covid because the kids were positive.

4
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> In the UK (thanks to our high vaccination rates in more vulnerable group and high levels of natural immunity) we’re in a markedly different position to most.

You'll find many countries have passed the uk in terms of percentage double jabbed and children, just because traditionally up take of any vaccination has always been higher. Resting on its laurels isn't likely to do the uk any good. 

The uks general lower health quality, obesity, diabetes and a health service that can't cope even before winter isn't a good starting point for the next 3 or 4 months. 

2
In reply to summo:

> You'll find many countries have passed the uk in terms of percentage double jabbed and children, just because traditionally up take of any vaccination has always been higher. Resting on its laurels isn't likely to do the uk any good. 

Yes and look how that’s turning out for them now (badly). Take a quick look at Wintertree’s plots - Europe (including many countries with their vaccine passports) is screwed.

France is the classic example. Much higher vaccination rates, but huge gaps in the over 65s which will cost them.

We shouldn’t test on our laurels, but we should keep doing what we’ve done well so far. Encouraging people to get jabbed, building natural immunity ect. Not doing something silly like introducing vaccine passports.

8
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> For example - I’m in a pub having a meal. I’ve shown my vaccine passport to get in. A couple come in with two toddlers and sit next to me. Mum and Dad show their passports (the kids haven’t been jabbed). Everyone in the pub gets exposed to Covid because the kids were positive.

maybe so, but those parents have done their best and Im happy to accept that compromise.

1
 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

If you want to minimise pressure on the NHS then testing is by far and away the best way to do that. The safest venue is one with no infected people, vaccinated or not. Anything else is a half arsed effort. 

3
In reply to summo:

> Wearing a seat belt impacts no one but the user? It's now accepted by all, just about.

Drink driving would be a better analogy as this can and does damage and kill others. Your certification just so happens to be police-enforced and either failing to provide or failing the test itself means losing your licence or possibly freedom.

 girlymonkey 21 Nov 2021
In reply to wbo2:

> : if you've refused to take a vaccination,  then get hospitalised , do you  think you should pay for your self inflicted situation?  I wondered if its similar to any other accident, but here you are , or should be, that an infection is very likely . 

> Covid insurance for the actively unvaccinated. 

> Some countries are now doing this b.t.w. 

No, I don't think so. I think the beauty of universal healthcare, paid for by our taxes, is that everyone is treated equally whether they are dealing with alcohol induced liver disease, climbing induced broken legs, food induced obesity related diseases or a genetically inherited disease.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> If you want to minimise pressure on the NHS then testing is by far and away the best way to do that. The safest venue is one with no infected people, vaccinated or not. Anything else is a half arsed effort. 

Its part of the overall strategy. One individual measure/tool cannot be used in isolation.

1
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

If you want to minimise pressure on the NHS this winter ban the over 80s from going up or down stairs.

Easy. You’ve eliminated a significant proportion of slips, trips and falls. NHS saved.

Covid currently is about 10% of hospital admissions - it isn’t the driver of the NHS’s woes at the moment. So why the focus on Covid?

9
 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

Agreed, because who gets to draw the line on likelihood? As climbers we know broken bones are actually very unlikely on the whole. But a member of general public who sees climbing as an extreme sport? Having any sort of additional insurance is the start of the slippery slope (or continuation of) privatisation and we’d all be worse off for that. 

Post edited at 11:54
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> If you want to minimise pressure on the NHS this winter ban the over 80s from going up or down stairs.

> Easy. You’ve eliminated a significant proportion of slips, trips and falls. NHS saved.

You are being obtuse. Some over 80s might need to go up or down stairs. Its essential and is not damaging others.

Too many people aren't vaccinating for stupid reasons, which is damaging others.

2
 elsewhere 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> What I find odd about the people who want vaccine passports is that they can never define why they want them.

Let me prove you wrong at this point. Here is a definition of why I think vaccine passports might be a good idea:

1) vaccine passports to reduce transmission in events where they are applied

2) to reduce the burden on the NHS by compelling people to get vaccinated.

Yours is not an honest post because you cannot honestly be ignorant of the following when people define why they think vaccine passports might be a good idea.

  • vaccination reduces infections
  • people uninfected thanks to vaccination don't put a burden on the NHS
  • people infected after vaccination place a lesser burden on the NHS
  • people uninfected thanks to vaccination don't transmit the virus further reducing burden on NHS

> If you want 2, there can’t be many unvaccinated people left who haven’t been infected (giving them immunity) and at the moment Covid itself isn’t putting massive pressure on the NHS (it’s everything else).

Funny that this "everything else" has come along during pandemic. I guess it's all due to lockdown. /s

> I suspect most people don’t actually want 1 or 2, they just want to be part of a collective punishment for a tiny minority of unvaccinated people.

Now I see. A persecution complex.

Post edited at 12:05
1
 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> In the UK [...] we’re in a markedly different position to most.

We do seem to be, but is that difference going to hold up for much longer?  It's mighty cold outside today...  Pride cometh before a fall, and we could be about to fall in line behind the rest for significant growth.

> We shouldn’t [r]est on our laurels, but we should keep doing what we’ve done well so far. Encouraging people to get jabbed, building natural immunity ect. Not doing something silly like introducing vaccine passports.

Some of the restrictive measures taken against the unvaccinated in Europe seems to be causing a sudden waive of enthusiasm for getting vaccinated, so even if vaccine passports had no direct medical benefit they fall at the less questionable end of the [carrot ⇦⇨ stick] scale.  There's a lot of vaccine hesitant people out there who aren't down the rabbit hole and if this flips them over to vaccination, great; it's far better for everyone than the emerging alternative of moving to a big stick.

Post edited at 12:09
In reply to elsewhere:

> Let me prove you wrong at this point. Here is a definition of why I think vaccine passports might be a good idea:

> 1) vaccine passports to reduce transmission in events where they are applied

> 2) to reduce the burden on the NHS by compelling people to get vaccinated.

> Your is not an honest post because you cannot honestly be ignorant of the following.

> vaccination reduces infections

> people uninfected thanks to vaccination don't put a burden on the NHS

> people infected after vaccination place a lesser burden on the NHS

> people uninfected thanks to vaccination don't transmit the virus further reducing burden on NHS

Look at Wintertree’s plots. Compare the UK with a country with vaccine passports. I guarantee that we have lower case rate growth and our deaths will be lower than the locked in rates of the other countries. Why is this? Please please answer this because elimination fantasists like yourself can never explain why we don’t have exponential growth, but countries with vaccine passports do.

> > If you want 2, there can’t be many unvaccinated people left who haven’t been infected (giving them immunity) and at the moment Covid itself isn’t putting massive pressure on the NHS (it’s everything else).

> Funny that this "everything else" has come along during pandemic. I guess it's all due to lockdown. /s

Yes - it’s excess demand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59299701.amp

Do you accept the graphs in the BBC article are real? You can see for yourself that Covid isn’t the issue.

> Now I see. A persecution complex.

Grow up - I’m not an elimination fantasist. I’ve been double jabbed like everyone else. 

2
 kinley2 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> If you want to minimise pressure on the NHS this winter ban the over 80s from going up or down stairs.

> Easy. You’ve eliminated a significant proportion of slips, trips and falls. NHS saved.

> Covid currently is about 10% of hospital admissions - it isn’t the driver of the NHS’s woes at the moment. So why the focus on Covid?

So in my hospital that 10% (or thereabouts) is, an entire Medical ward (actually a Surgical Ward used with the loss of elective surgical capacity), a High Dependency area in ID and half of ITU beds. 

Medical consultants displaced from core inpatient work to provide care, nursing staff and junior medical staff potentially displaced from speciality to cover.

Alongside high staff absence through covid isolation, infection and much worse than average wear and tear.

.....and for what it's worth, efforts to minimise the impact on healthcare of Covid (including getting vaccination as high as possible) are so over 80's can choose to go up and down the stairs. The physical and psychological Morbidity and Mortality of deconditioning and isolation of lockdown and shielding is, perhaps the great untold story in all this.

 elsewhere 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Look at Wintertree’s plots. Compare the UK with a country with vaccine passports. I guarantee that we have lower case rate growth and our deaths will be lower than the locked in rates of the other countries. Why is this? Please please answer this because elimination fantasists like yourself can never explain why we don’t have exponential growth, but countries with vaccine passports do.

Again I can disprove this. I am not a elimination fantasist. As proof I will state "I believe endemic looks likely than elimination" and I've said that here on UKC before. 

Maybe they have passports because they have exponential growth. Maybe I can't explain the politics of multiple other countries. Maybe I can't explain the epidemiology of multiple other countries.

> Yes - it’s excess demand.

> Do you accept the graphs in the BBC article are real? You can see for yourself that Covid isn’t the issue.

Every hospital bed used for Covid is a bed that can't be used for cancer, strokes or something else. We don't have the mechanism to reduce cancer, strokes or something else over a period of weeks. We do have mechanisms to reduce covid over a period of weeks.

> Grow up - I’m not an elimination fantasist. I’ve been double jabbed like everyone else. 

You can honestly disagree with it but I still don't think you can honestly claim to be ignorant of the following rationale.

1) vaccine passports to reduce transmission in events where they are applied

2) to reduce the burden on the NHS by compelling people to get vaccinated.

Yours is not an honest post because you cannot honestly be ignorant of the following when people define why they think vaccine passports might be a good idea.

vaccination reduces infections

people uninfected thanks to vaccination don't put a burden on the NHS

people infected after vaccination place a lesser burden on the NHS

people uninfected thanks to vaccination don't transmit the virus further reducing burden on NHS

2
In reply to elsewhere:

The majority of transmission takes place outside of places where a vaccine passport would be applicable.

Homes, Schools, Hospitals ect.

Vaccine passports would have a tiny impact on cases. It was always a bit of a joke when you had to wear a mask to walk into a pub, but once you sat down you could take it off. Same thing with vaccine passports. You’re pushing for something really quite divisive for minimal benefit.

You’re right that we have the tools to suppress Covid cases - I.e. lockdowns. Except they’re brutal and massively damaging to the economy.

If we had it your way we would have been wearing masks all summer, and be roughly in the same place Germany is now. I.e. about to go into lockdown. The “free-dumb” day lot have 0 credibility now.

4
 fred99 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

> It would be helpful if the reporting of covid deaths was broken down into vaccinated and unvaccinated when read out on the news to help push the benefits of being fully jabbed.

> Also I would make it a rule that unvaccinated people in an ICU bed are liable for removal should a vaccinated person need it. 

I'd go further and refuse entry to hospital in the first place for the unvaccinated who've caught it.

They want to ignore Covid - the NHS can ignore them.

Some might call me Mr. Nasty, but what about all those people with more "mundane" problems - Cancer, Heart problems, Hip replacements, etc. - who keep having their appointments put back because these idiots are both bed-blocking and knackering the NHS staff.

3
 fred99 21 Nov 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> To any who are opposed to vaccine passports on ethical grounds, do you foresee any time you would consider it acceptable?

When I went to Nepal I was required to have a vaccine passport.

I have no doubt many (most ?) people on this forum can say the same.

I someone has a notifiable disease they either present themselves to hospital to go into an isolation unit or they get arrested and put in one in clink.

We already have the situation where Measles etc. are reappearing in this country due to non-vaccination. Because of this It's about time we made it a legal requirement for kids to be vaccinated before they were allowed to go to school.

I see no logical reason for not extending this to cover what is the modern plague - Covid.

 fred99 21 Nov 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> I know this. I’m not here to argue against it.

>  

> I merely popped in to say that calling people anti vaxxers is about as productive as calling them gammons. It’ll make the situation worse, not better. If you can’t see that then.. *shrugs shoulders*

>  

I'll give you an analogy:

100 people in a factory/office complex.

99 of them wash their hands after going to the toilet, but 1 doesn't.

The likelihood of the other 99 catching some stomach bug from the door handles, copiers, etc. now rears its ugly head. (It really did happen when I worked at a warehouse, and up to 600 people with a stomach bug is not something you ever want to contemplate given a finite number of toilets).

If that 1 person is boasting about NOT washing their hands, would you regard the management as being in the wrong if they sacked said individual in order to protect the other 99.

 fred99 21 Nov 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> No, I don't think so. I think the beauty of universal healthcare, paid for by our taxes, is that everyone is treated equally whether they are dealing with alcohol induced liver disease, climbing induced broken legs, food induced obesity related diseases or a genetically inherited disease.

The difference with all those is that each only affect the individual.

If someone has Covid - or any other infectious virus/disease - they can (and do) affect (and infect) others, including the medical staff treating them.

1
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Covid currently is about 10% of hospital admissions - it isn’t the driver of the NHS’s woes at the moment. So why the focus on Covid?

A person with covid in intensive care spends 3 time longer there than those using it as recovery from elective surgery, they are in effect bed blocking, through their unwillingness to be vaccinated. 

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> The majority of transmission takes place outside of places where a vaccine passport would be applicable.

> Vaccine passports would have a tiny impact on cases. It was always a bit of a joke when you had to wear a mask to walk into a pub, but once you sat down you could take it off. Same thing with vaccine passports. You’re pushing for something really quite divisive for minimal benefit.

Nope. 

The bars in the Austrian ski resort, those last European football games, a concert, Cheltenham races, some church events .. have all been proven through mutation tracking to have been key spreading events. 

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Covid currently is about 10% of hospital admissions - it isn’t the driver of the NHS’s woes at the moment. 

It's a 10% additional load on a very finite resource that is barely adequate to meet demand in the best of times. A 10% over demand grows and grows...

It looks to me that the extra 10% is having a pretty catastrophic effect on the NHS, in addition to the covid-generated backlog, covid-exhausted staff, and brexit-decimated staffing.

 girlymonkey 21 Nov 2021
In reply to fred99:

I don't think they should be forced to pay though, that is a step too far. 

I would be happy for vaccination status to be taken into consideration when deciding who gets a bed for Covid care. Vaccination increases your chance of survival for covid, so if 2 people need 1 bed for covid treatment, and one is vaccinated and the other isn't then it is only right to prioritise the vaccinated as they are more likely to benefit from it. 

Our NHS is always free at the point of use, no matter who you are or what life choices you have made.

 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> To be honest I can’t really think of any circumstances where I’d consider vaccine passports appropriate. You don’t get asked for your HIV status when you go to the climbing wall (despite the risk of bloody flappers)? You don’t have a flu vaccine passport? In general we don’t ask for people health status in this country (which is a good thing).

Travel. 

> What I find odd about the people who want vaccine passports is that they can never define why they want them.

> In my mind either you want 1) vaccine passports to reduce transmission in events where they are applied or 2) to reduce the burden on the NHS by compelling people to get vaccinated.

> If you want 1, you can still spread Covid when you’re vaccinated, you’re going to be exposed eventually anyway ect. It seems mildly beneficial, but does this outweigh the privacy/ societal issue - not too me.

> If you want 2, there can’t be many unvaccinated people left who haven’t been infected (giving them immunity) and at the moment Covid itself isn’t putting massive pressure on the NHS (it’s everything else).

> I suspect most people don’t actually want 1 or 2, they just want to be part of a collective punishment for a tiny minority of unvaccinated people.

Vaccination reduces chances of catching it. If you haven't got it you can't spread it.

Vaccination does not eliminate chance of catching it or spreading it. Get vaccinated. If you don't want to get vaccinated - don't go where you might be spreading or catching it. And I'm happy to ban you. If for no other reason than to protect those who can't (as opposed to won't) get vaccinated, and as a means of "encouraging" you to get vaccinated.

Much as the suggestion is that we should be empathetic, understanding and persuasive with those who won't get vaccinated, it's getting tiresome dealing with the consequences of their child-like idiocy.

1
In reply to Hardonicus:

Is it me or are a lot of opinions about those who oppose pious and vainglorious and further widen the divide when we should be winning hearts and minds to beat the virus - the common enemy.

2
 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to stealth_mode_rob:

> Is it me or are a lot of opinions about those who oppose pious and vainglorious and further widen the divide when we should be winning hearts and minds to beat the virus - the common enemy.

There’s a second common enemy here, which is the organised forces who’ve spent the last 18 months pumping out propaganda against vaccines and control measures, and who I expect have their fingerprints all over the escalating riot situations developing in Europe.  The Byline Times in particular has dug in to their meta organisation a lot, although they’re arrogant and confident enough they barely try and hide it.

It’s these people who I view as the national security threat, not (as wrongly assumed up thread) the people drawn in to the social media rabbit hole by them.  The later are victims and are being used to present the immediate threat to healthcare in a rising number of nations, and are being wound up into an escalating series of protests.

In reply to summo:

> Nope. 

> The bars in the Austrian ski resort, those last European football games, a concert, Cheltenham races, some church events .. have all been proven through mutation tracking to have been key spreading events. 

Don’t be so daft.

They get flagged because there is some transmission and they’re high profile events.

Out of the c.100k new infections we have a day in the UK how many do you think are from going to watch a football match down the pub vs how many do you think are from someone inviting their neighbour over for a cup of tea.

Yes there will be some spread in pubs, clubs ect, but the vast majority of infections will either come from schools, homes or hospitals (probably 90% plus).

We’ve seen real life proof that vaccine passports don’t work when you compare Scottish and English cases. If your theory was correct then Scotland would have significantly lower covid rates than England. It does not. This alone should prove that vaccine passports are a waste of time and money.

5
 George Ormerod 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

When the conservative government in Alberta introduced a vaccine passport (which it couldn’t call a passport for political reasons) it tripled the vaccination rate overnight. 

 George Ormerod 21 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> It’s these people who I view as the national security threat, not (as wrongly assumed up thread) the people drawn in to the social media rabbit hole by them.  The later are victims and are being used to present the immediate threat to healthcare in a rising number of nations, and are being wound up into an escalating series of protests.

Agreed, this is a huge national security threat, tantamount to a crime against humanity, ultimately killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing untold economic damage. Governments should be aggressively working against these as if this was a terrorist threat.  

1
 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Don’t be so daft.

> They get flagged because there is some transmission and they’re high profile events.

> Out of the c.100k new infections we have a day in the UK how many do you think are from going to watch a football match down the pub vs how many do you think are from someone inviting their neighbour over for a cup of tea.

> Yes there will be some spread in pubs, clubs ect, but the vast majority of infections will either come from schools, homes or hospitals (probably 90% plus).

Citation needed.

> We’ve seen real life proof that vaccine passports don’t work when you compare Scottish and English cases. If your theory was correct then Scotland would have significantly lower covid rates than England. It does not. This alone should prove that vaccine passports are a waste of time and money.

Have you actually looked at Scotland's vaccine passport scheme. It's very light touch and avoids the venues that have been studied to demonstrate spread, like restaurants.

1
In reply to off-duty:

Page 10 of https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-transmission-paper.pdf

Old-ish, but I see no reason why the findings are no longer correct.

1
 Jamie Wakeham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I'm surprised this hasn't been linked to yet (apologies if it has upthread and I missed it): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

At this stage the wilfully unvaccinated are behaving like deluded children, and at some point children have to be parented.  Being told they cannot go to certain places is, to my mind, an absolute minimum.  

1
 Duncan Bourne 21 Nov 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> It’s unfair to brand our own government as a national security threat.<

Oh I wouldn't know. The whole way they run things seems a security threat

 wercat 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Juicymite86:

> Im just waiting for the tests from any long term side effects from the jab......

I suggest you refrain from any adventure recreationally as there is a body of knowledge suggesting the risks are sugnificant

 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Old-ish, but I see no reason why the findings are no longer correct.

I guess you could be generously given the benefit of the doubt that this isn't just bad faith nonsense.

That paper highlights the importance of households as a huge source of secondary transmission of virus. Not entirely unexpectedly. 

As to how that virus enters the household, the data was limited but:

"How index cases introducing infection into households acquire their COVID19 infection is less certain. Very limited data form the UK suggests social gatherings in restaurant and bars are important, as are shops and supermarkets."

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Old-ish, but I see no reason why the findings are no longer correct.

From the executive summary of your link:

The available UK data suggests that most transmission occurs in household settings, with frequency related to social interactions within households. However, where most people acquire infection, may not be the most important issue in terms of controlling spread. Key factors in limiting onward transmission are who seeds the household setting, and where this index case acquired infection?
 

and


Data are limited in the UK on where index cases in households acquire infection, but the information collated by Public Health England (PHE) suggest that much heterogeneity pertains, depending on a variety of social and demographic factors. Activity related to shopping and social gatherings in restaurants and pubs generate the most infections, although many other factors have influence.

I don’t think your link says what you think your link says.

And, from ONS:

In the latest week (ending 13 November 2021), the estimated percentage of the community population that had COVID-19 was: 

1.51% in England (1 in 65 people)

1.84% in Wales (1 in 55 people) 

1.53% in Northern Ireland (1 in 65 people) 

1.06% in Scotland (1 in 95 people)

Scotland’s proportion of population infected has been consistently lower than England for some weeks now. And it’s not because the weather is better… 

 wercat 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Perhaps it is because I grew up in a time when polio victims were seen commonly in a slightly older age group and among proper adults who went through the war years and didn't obsess about matters of personal choice but I think it should have been taken for granted ab initio that there was a civil duty to volunteer for vaccination, with enforceability a serious option if the population fell short of that duty.  The chattering classes would have had less time on mumsnet and all the other twitty media to come up with and disseminate silly ideas.

If it can go through without any proper debate that a tiny majority in a vote could get us out of Europe or split up the Union then it bloody well Should have gone without debate that we had such a civil duty to "adult up" and bare our arms for the jab.

See what a fine mess the mamby pamby chatterers have got us into Stan?

Post edited at 16:55
1
In reply to off-duty:

Snap! 😁

In reply to stealth_mode_rob:

> Is it me or are a lot of opinions about those who oppose pious and vainglorious and further widen the divide when we should be winning hearts and minds to beat the virus - the common enemy.

It is you.

 Hardonicus 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

It's a puff piece to complement the 'so and so died' propaganda stories drip fed by the BBC. My understanding is that there are similar numbers of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated in ICUs. I know ratio wise that's a vast difference given the 90%ish vaccination rate, but on absolute numbers that is the case. This is the kind of shitty analysis that fuels the antivax idiots. Let's have some objective discussion.

On Covid 'risks' - people up thread concerned about going out for dinner because of other people's vaccination status - frankly it's completely absurd. Covid is about 4 times more likely to put you in the ground than flu if you are <65. We also see long covid trotted out again up thread like we know what/how much of a thing that is since we the public seem not to be provided with any objective data.

Maybe I've got a skewed perspective since I get to share a lecture theatre with ~200 students a few times a week...

9
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Covid currently is about 10% of hospital admissions - it isn’t the driver of the NHS’s woes at the moment. 

> It's a 10% additional load on a very finite resource that is barely adequate to meet demand in the best of times. A 10% over demand grows and grows...

> It looks to me that the extra 10% is having a pretty catastrophic effect on the NHS, in addition to the covid-generated backlog, covid-exhausted staff, and brexit-decimated staffing.

This. Expect some pretty grim headlines over the next few months; and lots and lots of personal tragedy and suffering that doesn’t make the news- operations and out patient clinics cancelled, diseases progressing past the point where treatment will be as effective, lives lost and marred because too many people drank from the poisoned wells of social media, or thought that saving society from a pandemic was somebody else’s job. 

 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Juicymite86:

> Im just waiting for the tests from any long term side effects from the jab......

Something to contemplate when proned in an ICU recieving ventilation I guess.

I suppose you can enjoy the mental gymnastics of trying to calculate the known risks of death and long term damage to yourself whilst unvaccinated, combined with the number of people you might have infected and the increased risk you have posed of being the exposure that causes your vaccinated acquaintances to get a breakthrough infection.

Still, you're alright Jack. Oh wait, no you aren't, you've inevitably caught a lethal infection that is likely to be either pandemic or endemic.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Who said they are draconian? Im all for personal freedoms and liberties but personally view them as sensible and common sense, not draconian. Im fully vaccinated so my personal freedoms are unlikely to be curtailed and having a simple app on my phone to produce evidence of such is no hardship.

I’ve just come back from San Diego where the current practice is to require masks to be worn in hotels, restaurants and and shops if you are unvaccinated.  As far as I could see, vaccination status wasn’t checked but it seems quite a clever strategy that forces the Covid-sceptical to choose between their distrust of vaccines and their dislike of visible masking (with its political implications). 
 

Some shops (like REI) had a pretty much universal masking, presumably irrespective of vaccination status - not sure if you can draw any conclusions about their core demographic from that.

In reply to Hardonicus:

Quite - the guardian roles out a scare story any time the data suggests that things are looking okay.

I guess they’re just pandering to their readership.

I said a few months back that peoples perception of risk has become distorted because of the pandemic. A small risk from Covid is perceived as more worrying than a bigger risk from something else. It still holds true.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that there will be people on this forum who are scared sh&tless of Covid, but are happily planning their next alpine/ Himalayan adventure.

I guess people cling desperately to the idea of more Covid control measures as it lets them feel in control of their fate, rather than the hopelessness of waiting to get infected and seeing what happens (you’ll all be fine).

11
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

>> Is it me or are a lot of opinions about those who oppose pious and vainglorious and further widen the divide when we should be winning hearts and minds to beat the virus - the common enemy.

> It is you.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're inferring by that comment. I was pointing out how combative language can drive people to further extremes. I believe this is a valid statement. If you want to distort what I said, I respect your right to look like a wally too!

1
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> We’ve seen real life proof that vaccine passports don’t work when you compare Scottish and English cases. 

Vaccine passport in Scotland don't apply to all venues and won't catch all age groups either. Plus any measure has a lead in time.

The things correlating with low covid numbers are distancing and vaccination, if you don't want to distance, get vaccinated. It's not that hard, you just sit there!! 

2
In reply to Hardonicus:

So, if that 10% took the vaccine, that would nearly halve the number of people with COVID in UTI. 

 wercat 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

I think you are wrong.  There is no evidence that people are scared shitless about their own risk, which they can, to an extent which is under their own control, mitigate.

I think there are a lot of people who are scared, shitless or otherwise, of the consequences of much degraded access to timely acute healthcare, timely preventative healthcare and timely evacuation by ambulance and subsequent access to emergency treatment for themselves, their family and the rest of the population.  Together with being worried about the threat to the future of the NHS and the consequences when its staff are overworked, burnt out by workload etc

Please don't misrepresent us

1
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

I'm not scared of covid and aren't booking Himalayan expeds either. 

I'm pretty good with stats, I've never thought it would kill me, I'm genuinely healthier than most my age, have none of the associated high risk conditions, I'd happily get vaccinated every 6 months for the rest of my life if that lowers my risk of covid causing any lasting damage to my body, like reduced lung function, that alone should be reason for anyone going up hills to wary of covid. 

 Jamie Wakeham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> My understanding is that there are similar numbers of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated in ICUs.

Source, please?

> I know ratio wise that's a vast difference given the 90%ish vaccination rate, but on absolute numbers that is the case. This is the kind of shitty analysis that fuels the antivax idiots. Let's have some objective discussion.

Even if your evens suggestion is true, than it still suggests we can more or less halve the people in ICU with covid at a stroke.

> Maybe I've got a skewed perspective since I get to share a lecture theatre with ~200 students a few times a week...

I teach.

 Jamie Wakeham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that there will be people on this forum who are scared sh&tless of Covid, but are happily planning their next alpine/ Himalayan adventure.

I'm not scared of getting covid.  I've had it at least once already.  I am terrified of my immunocompromised mother getting it.  Unvaccinated morons are making that more likely than it needs to be.

1
In reply to stealth_mode_rob:

You said people you disagree with hold “pious and vainglorious” opinions. You then say combative language can drive people apart, and that “winning hearts and minds” is the way to go. You then throw in an ad hom.  Irony and consistency  aren’t  your strong points…

 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Maybe I've got a skewed perspective since I get to share a lecture theatre with ~200 students a few times a week...

Having stopped doing that since the pandemic, my perspective has swung round from "meh" to how much damage I was doing to my respiratory health each winter with the mother of all clobberings that would inevitably hit as the sheer exhaustion set in at the end of term along with exposure to basically every respiratory disease at once.

No, I'm not doing that again, Covid or no Covid.  I don't mind getting colds and what have you - it's probably an important part of the normal order of things for now - but I'm not going in to any weapons grade viral load scenarios again if I can at all avoid it.

1
In reply to Hardonicus:

The fact that we don't know the impact of long covid, doesn't mean covid hasn't caused a lasting impact on some people's health. It's just not fully understood yet, maybe it'll be nothing and all the people struggling weeks and months after are hypochondriacs. 

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Nearly. I agree with what's been said, I object to how its being put across, that's all.

 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Quite - the guardian roles out a scare story any time the data suggests that things are looking okay.

> I guess they’re just pandering to their readership.

"I don't like this story, so I'm going to dismiss it"

> I said a few months back that peoples perception of risk has become distorted because of the pandemic. A small risk from Covid is perceived as more worrying than a bigger risk from something else. It still holds true.

"I don't really understand the myriad risks of COVID, so I'm going to dismiss it"

> I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that there will be people on this forum who are scared sh&tless of Covid, but are happily planning their next alpine/ Himalayan adventure.

"Haha, laugh at the fules, I don't like their arguments so I'll dismiss them with some whataboutery"

> I guess people cling desperately to the idea of more Covid control measures as it lets them feel in control of their fate, rather than the hopelessness of waiting to get infected and seeing what happens (you’ll all be fine).

"Haha, laugh at the fules, I'm going to just dismiss COVID".

Yeah. That's right. "We" are all scared. You carry on ignoring it, it'll be right.

Post edited at 17:24
In reply to stealth_mode_rob:

> Nearly. I agree with what's been said, I object to how its being put across, that's all.

I think after 12months now, most people's patience has worn out with anti vaxers, the let them have their say has last implications... it's not the same as just listening to a newly hatched vegan... covid has serious impacts on many aspects of society. 

 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to George Ormerod:

> When the conservative government in Alberta introduced a vaccine passport (which it couldn’t call a passport for political reasons) it tripled the vaccination rate overnight. 

This is a point I also made that I don't think VS or Hardonicus have engaged with (apologies if they have and I've missed it.)

I think similar effects can be seen in some European nations over recent months.

It's wrong to think of there as only being anti-vaccination people out there unvaccinated; there's a lot of people for whom it's either to a priority or for whom there's some hesitancy that can be overcome.  

 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> [...] San Diego [...] REI

Did you hand your wallet over to a responsible adult before going in to the cycle section?

> As far as I could see, vaccination status wasn’t checked but it seems quite a clever strategy 

There's definitely been a role for good strategy that does pragmatic things to get the most people vaccinated, the problem now is the time is running out for subtle approaches.  

 mrphilipoldham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Quite

In reply to stealth_mode_rob:

I think if this were a space where there were unvaccinated people who were genuinely open to having their minds changed, then I’d agree with you.

But it’s not; it’s largely a space where vaccinated people, many of whom have to deal with the consequences of other people’s poor choices regarding the vaccine, can come to vent their frustration, anger and even despair. These are all valid responses to the events and people need to have somewhere to let these feelings out, even if it’s just so they can reflect on them and calm down afterwards. 
 

but the blame here is not on the people who are appalled at the needless death and economic wreckage; it’s on the people who have had a year to consider the evidence of tens of millions of doses given and a massive impact on reduced illness and  death, and instead choose to throw their lot in with those who work to harm our society by spreading lies and distortions  

1
In reply to wintertree:

I’ll engage.

When vaccination levels are low, vaccine passports do make some sense. France, with its high levels of vaccine scepticism is an example of this.

However in the UK we already have very high levels of uptake in the age groups that matter (50+).

Covid passports might encourage more 18-40 years olds to get vaccinated so they can go to the pub, but if you’re 65+ and haven’t been jabbed by now (in the UK) you’re either really thick and don’t understand your personal risk or you’re an “anti-vaxxer”.

Covid passports won’t increase uptake in these groups, you’ll probably just harden their position.

Messaging is key with these groups. We need to softly softly encourage them to get jabbed.

I dispute the public health benefit aside from coercion. Would the coercion really work? I think yes in younger age groups (see Frances uptake for 20 year olds), but no in older age groups (again see France).

2
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> Source, please?

All the numbers you could want here:

https://www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/5ae07e36-7c49-ec11-9138-00505601089b

But guess what.....? You won't believe this.... but..... he was talking shit!

 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I’ll engage.

> When vaccination levels are low, vaccine passports do make some sense. France, with its high levels of vaccine scepticism is an example of this.

> However in the UK we already have very high levels of uptake in the age groups that matter (50+).

> Covid passports might encourage more 18-40 years olds to get vaccinated so they can go to the pub, but if you’re 65+ and haven’t been jabbed by now (in the UK) you’re either really thick and don’t understand your personal risk or you’re an “anti-vaxxer”.

> Covid passports won’t increase uptake in these groups, you’ll probably just harden their position.

> Messaging is key with these groups. We need to softly softly encourage them to get jabbed.

> I dispute the public health benefit aside from coercion. Would the coercion really work? I think yes in younger age groups (see Frances uptake for 20 year olds), but no in older age groups (again see France).

I agree - measures are likely to focus on the 18-40 group. Which current has well under 75% vaccinated in the UK and who - due to their mobility, going to work, socialising etc, are likely to be key elements in that primary transmission of COVID, and who are also have a decent chance of living in mixed generation households and/or shared household for the secondary transmission within an address.

I'd say "encouraging" the reticent in those categories to get vaccinated makes a lot of sense.  

Post edited at 18:09
2
In reply to VSisjustascramble:


All age groups matter.

Only around 70% of the U.K. population is double vaccinated. That needs to be higher to reduce transmission. The younger age groups will have the highest numbers of vaccine hesitant people who are more likely to be nudged into getting the vaccine in order to travel, attend social events etc. Vaccine passports may have a role in that, as well as it becoming a condition of employment in some sectors. 


 

 mik82 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> My understanding is that there are similar numbers of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated in ICUs. I know ratio wise that's a vast difference given the 90%ish vaccination rate, but on absolute numbers that is the case. This is the kind of shitty analysis that fuels the antivax idiots. Let's have some objective discussion.

Latest data there is - 72% unvaccinated in ICU. Considering you could reduce this by 90-95% with vaccination it's a large and unnecessary impact. 

In reply to off-duty:

Yes, but of that group of 18-40 year olds, if they’ve been actively socialising, haven’t already caught Covid?

If this mass spreading effect was real why aren’t we seeing exponential growth in the UK?

The wheels fall off the argument when you think it through.

The real threat to the NHS are the unvaxxed 65+. A small, but very likely to die group. And it’s this group we need to focus on.

Transmission is a bit of a red herring at the moment in my opinion. Cases are stable in the UK. Other control measures are available (not desirable in my view).

4
In reply to off-duty:

Snap, again …!

Many in this group won’t have seen it as a priority; and one of the consequences of the government’s serial lying on so many fronts compromises it’s capacity to persuade them it should be. One more thing that Johnson carries responsibility for- the need to turn to state coercion to get people to do something that is necessary when persuasion should be enough. But you can’t unscramble an egg, and you can’t get people to believe a serial liar is an honest broker; yet we must have higher vaccination rates. 
 

i don’t think many of the vaccine hesitant hold that position nearly as strongly as the vocal opponents of vaccination on social media; and many, even most, will prioritise convenience in their social life and employment over ideological purity. 

3
 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Transmission is a bit of a red herring at the moment in my opinion

That changes with the third dose however.  I’d like to see opening up 3rd doses to all over 40s after five months considered, assuming there’s capacity to deliver.

Society is somewhat segmented by age for transmission, and the boosters are reducing growth most where the most potential hospital demand is, so they help with both vaccinated and unvaccinated admissions in waiting - the later are only deferred until the future, not cancelled, but that’s a useful step for where things are...

 Hardonicus 21 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

It's really a dilemma, and I have no doubt vaccine passports would up vaccination rates. But does the end always justify the means? Maybe.

My issue with all this is the combination of propaganda, forced coercion and misinformation. The approach is as bad as that from the anti vax side, I'm more appalled by this then I was by the quality of the Brexit debate.

We need better communication of science from scientists. We also need to be clearer at attempting to communicate uncertainties associated with scientific observations and data. That Guardian piece is a classic example of crappy reportage.

5
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> All age groups matter.

Absolutely disagree with you. Completely and utterly disagree. Take a look at the French vaccine data by age group. They have a higher total vaccination rate, but are completely screwed once cases start to rise.

> Only around 70% of the U.K. population is double vaccinated. That needs to be higher to reduce transmission. The younger age groups will have the highest numbers of vaccine hesitant people who are more likely to be nudged into getting the vaccine in order to travel, attend social events etc. Vaccine passports may have a role in that, as well as it becoming a condition of employment in some sectors. 

The 70% (it’s 68%) includes children who aren’t eligible to be vaccinated. 

If you nudge young adults into getting vaccinated then you’ll have an impact on case data (cases are a meaningless reference point at this point in the pandemic - despite the best efforts of some e.g. TiE to make a big deal of then). However it will barely move the dial on hospitalisation and deaths. This is/was/will always be the key driver of healthcare overload.

 Jamie Wakeham 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I just wrote a lengthy rebuttal to you, before I realised that you were accusing the OP and not the ICU consultant of talking shit!  Deleted most of it, but to save everyone else trawling through that document...

One of the relevant numbers, though, is that, of all the people admitted to critical care between May and July, 73% were unvaccinated.  That's against a background of about two thirds of the population being vaccinated.

 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Yes, but of that group of 18-40 year olds, if they’ve been actively socialising, haven’t already caught Covid?

Yet.

> If this mass spreading effect was real why aren’t we seeing exponential growth in the UK?

Huh? Because of the underlying good level of vaccination of those most at risk, and because despite the hesitant we still have 70+% vaccination on that group. "Not exponential growth" isn't really much a of win.

> The wheels fall off the argument when you think it through.

? I'm struggling to see the evidence of thought.

> The real threat to the NHS are the unvaxxed 65+. A small, but very likely to die group. And it’s this group we need to focus on.

No. The real threat to the NHS is the 3 to 4 times more likely to be hospitalised unvaccinated and the 3 to 4 times more likely to die unvaccinated (across all age groups).

And the wider risk these create in getting and spreading infection, and exposing others to infection,name generally keeping COVID swilling around the population at a far too dangerous level.

> Transmission is a bit of a red herring at the moment in my opinion. Cases are stable in the UK. Other control measures are available (not desirable in my view).

Masks, vaccination, ventilation and distancing appear to be the key measures available. Not entirely sure what your proposed measures are.

 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Absolutely disagree with you. Completely and utterly disagree. Take a look at the French vaccine data by age group. They have a higher total vaccination rate, but are completely screwed once cases start to rise.

> The 70% (it’s 68%) includes children who aren’t eligible to be vaccinated. 

> If you nudge young adults into getting vaccinated then you’ll have an impact on case data (cases are a meaningless reference point at this point in the pandemic - despite the best efforts of some e.g. TiE to make a big deal of then). However it will barely move the dial on hospitalisation and deaths. This is/was/will always be the key driver of healthcare overload.

It's like you are just making stuff up to reassure yourself. Younger people die of this too.

If they are unvaccinated they are more likely to die.

If they are unvaccinated they are more.liley to catch it. If they catch it, they spread it.

If they are unvaccinated they are more likely to spread it.

And young people will also be impacted by the NHS going on it's arse again due to winter and COVID demand.

2
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Yes, but of that group of 18-40 year olds, if they’ve been actively socialising, haven’t already caught Covid?

> If this mass spreading effect was real why aren’t we seeing exponential growth in the UK?

> The wheels fall off the argument when you think it through.

> The real threat to the NHS are the unvaxxed 65+. A small, but very likely to die group. And it’s this group we need to focus on.

> Transmission is a bit of a red herring at the moment in my opinion. Cases are stable in the UK. Other control measures are available (not desirable in my view).

Tripe. Did you look at longsuffringropeholder’s link? P24, patient characteristics: 3/4 of those who have received nhs critical care for COVID have been 65 or under. The older die more often, but the younger patients need the resources and those resources are then not available for other conditions.

cases are stable as R is sitting around 1. So, before we enter the winter period, when transmission is likely to increase, at current vaccination rates, we are seeing high and stable levels of transmission, leading to around 1 in 10 NHS beds being occupied by s COVID patient. If change in behaviour as we enter the depths of winter pushes R up just a fraction then we are back into exponential growth, with zero slack in the hospital system to cope with that.

Increasing vaccination rates reduces R and gives us a buffer against exponential increases in cases and demand on hospitals. We’ve had a year of trying to persuade people, and the people persuadable by this means have been persuaded. We have to get vaccine rates up, and passports are as light touch a way of achieving that as we have available.  

As to the “wheels fall off” comment- I think your self assessment of your understanding of epidemiology is at variance with your actual understanding of it. 

 Hardonicus 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Yes I have mixed up hospital admissions which are about 50/50 (actually more vaxxed) and UCU which is 70/30 unvaxxed/vaxxed.

https://fullfact.org/health/economist-vaccination-status/

Nonetheless, the point in the article about covid being 'largely a disease of the unvaccinated' is palpably bollocks...

Post edited at 18:44
10
In reply to off-duty:

> It's like you are just making stuff up to reassure yourself. Younger people die of this too.

> If they are unvaccinated they are more likely to die.

> If they are unvaccinated they are more.liley to catch it. If they catch it, they spread it.

> If they are unvaccinated they are more likely to spread it.

> And young people will also be impacted by the NHS going on it's arse again due to winter and COVID demand.

No I’m really not.

Being vaccinated reduces your risk. It effectively makes you 10 years younger in Covid terms.

A vaccinated 80 year old has roughly the same risk profile as an unvaccinated 70 year old.

Younger people do die. But for example if you’re an unvaccinated 18-24 male you’re more likely to die in a car crash than from Covid.

Making efforts on trying to get more under-30s jabbed is a complete waste of time and resources. 

 off-duty 21 Nov 2021
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> No I’m really not.

> Being vaccinated reduces your risk. It effectively makes you 10 years younger in Covid terms.

> A vaccinated 80 year old has roughly the same risk profile as an unvaccinated 70 year old.

> Younger people do die. But for example if you’re an unvaccinated 18-24 male you’re more likely to die in a car crash than from Covid.

> Making efforts on trying to get more under-30s jabbed is a complete waste of time and resources. 

Genuinely, I haven't got time for this rehash of basic principles of risk, let alone epidemiology, combined with your apparent desire to pull "data" out of thin air.

I concur with no_more_scotch_eggs this is the Dunning Kruger effect in full flow.

2
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

Your data doesn’t lead to that conclusion at all. There is still significant transmission in the age groups where vaccination rates are lower than desired. If vaccination rates are increased, transmission events that age group is responsible for will reduce. This will lead to a reduction in R. This pushes us further away from R>1, when we see exponential spread reestablished. Every little helps.
 

And you’ve already made the point that the unvaccinated over 65s are either too stupid or too entrenched to shift them now (or, they can’t have the vaccine for medical reasons). The younger age groups will have more people who are likely to respond to nudging by eg passports. Far from being a waste of effort, targeting the under 30s is where the biggest impact can be made.

and given this appears to be the strategy of governments across Europe, either you know better than the epidemiologists and public health experts that are advising them, or you might be wrong on this.

In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> The 70% (it’s 68%) includes children who aren’t eligible to be vaccinated. 

Is it that low, after the procurement head start the uk had? No wonder a 1000 are dying weekly. 

1
In reply to Hardonicus:

> Nonetheless, the point in the article about covid being 'largely a disease of the unvaccinated' is palpably bollocks...

Well, let's look at the ratios.

ICU: 73%/27% = 2.7x

Vax/unvax = 0.66/0.33 = 2

Combine these two, and we get a ratio of 5.4x more likely to end up in ICU if you're not vaccinated.

I don't think that factor can be considered 'palpably bollocks'. The simple, unweighted factor of 2.7 isn't to be ignored.

 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to thread:

The Vorlons have a saying - "Understanding is a three edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth."

We’re uncomfortably close to finding out the truth. 

Now feels a lot like the right time to turn on a lot of mild control measures in England and access that world off R<1 that’s so tantalisingly close.  However large the benefits of having allowed the virus to spread so much may or may turn out to be, things could escalate rapidly with this cold spell.    Carrying on with the never-actually-spelt-out policy we have in to winter does not seem wise.

2
 kinley2 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> It's really a dilemma, and I have no doubt vaccine passports would up vaccination rates. But does the end always justify the means? Maybe.

Eddie, This is society fighting back against ill-informed individualism.

Setting aside those that are admitted critically ill having failed to take a safe, simple step to protect themselves, I'm seeing healthcare for the vulnerable massively degraded by the impact of this pandemic, causing worsened healthcare outcomes.

People with chronic health issues have suffered loss of cognitive, psychological and physical condition as a result of lockdown and shielding.

This isn't simply a matter of personal freedom, I'm afraid you need to look a bit deeper and see that it is an issue of societal responsibility.

Sorry if it doesn't sit well with you, but frankly the impacts at the sharp end are awful.

2
 Misha 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

> If we are only concerned with hospilisations/deaths then we could have mandatory passports for those who are overweight and/or who have existing conditions. A fighting fit 42 year old who has looked after his health all his life has an absolutely negligible chance of serious impact from covid, what justification is there for imposing draconian restrictions in a blanket manner?

Depends on your definition of negligible. As climbers, we deal with risk all the time. We accept some risk but we also avoid unnecessary risks, eg most people wouldn’t try a bold route in poor conditions. It’s also a question of consequences. You might not bother clipping in to a belay on a ledge 2m above flat ground but you would on a ledge half way up El Cap. The consequences of Covid can be anything from asymptomatic to dead. Would you mitigate an unnecessary risk with potentially severe consequences in climbing? We aren’t invincible.

What really is negligible is the risk of your 42 year old getting a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine. It makes no sense not to get it.

Individually the chances of a healthy 42 year old ending up in hospital may be very low but across 100,000 healthy 42 year olds there’s a good chance someone will end up in hospital. Not to mention the risk of infecting others. The study you referred to suggests a meaningful reduction in infection even in a household context. I suspect the reduction outside the household would be greater (if you’re living with someone and can’t isolate them in a separate room, it makes sense to me that there’s a decent chance you’ll pick it up, vaccine or not; the chances of infection outside the household are lower but equally I would expect the vaccine to have more of an impact - which then becomes significant across tens of millions of people and everyday interactions).

1
 Misha 21 Nov 2021
In reply to kinley2:

> This isn't simply a matter of personal freedom, I'm afraid you need to look a bit deeper and see that it is an issue of societal responsibility.

I would add - it’s an issue of individual freedom in a positive way. We all want to be ‘free’ of Covid and that it entails, as far as possible. That means we have to accept some restrictions in order to be able to get on with our lives in the medium to long term and above all to avoid more lockdowns. The least bad option perhaps but a lot better than the alternatives.

The unvaccinated may well have to accept more restrictions so that the majority of people can return to a more or less normal life with more or less normal healthcare provision. They have a very simple way to avoid those restrictions.

 Misha 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Even if hospital admissions are 50/50 as you say (I haven’t checked), it would still be largely a disease of the unvaccinated, given there are a lot more vaccinated people - especially in the demographics which account for most hospital admissions. 

2
In reply to wintertree:

> Carrying on with the never-actually-spelt-out policy we have in to winter does not seem wise.

Yeah. For all the talk of 'Plan B' (whatever that is), I'm not sure 'Plan A' has ever been spelt out clearly.

In reply to captain paranoia:

> Vax/unvax = 0.66/0.33 = 2

If we look at the ratio for over-12s, it's 0.8/0.2 = 4x. Giving us a factor of 10.8x more likely to end up in ICU if you're not vaccinated.

 wintertree 21 Nov 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Yeah. For all the talk of 'Plan B' (whatever that is), I'm not sure 'Plan A' has ever been spelt out clearly.

From my view, Plan A still comes as a surprise to a lot of people - talking about my off-line contacts here, not faux-naïf posters on UKC.

I have a funny feeling that the lack of clarity perhaps relates to sealed advice from the Attorney General over liability with regards messaging and written/communicated policy.  In a fleetingly rare moment of sympathy with the government, I don't think case law or medical ethics were ready for this pandemic and that may constrain them to our net detriment.  

The problem is, a lack of clarity leads to confusion and perverse incentives, which limit responsiveness of the state.  Tied in PR knots.  One of the clear messages from history is that transparency and free communications are powerful levers to pull in a pandemic.

 Misha 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

Reflecting on this more widely, in a perverse way, debating the merits of restrictions on the unvaccinated is a nice ‘issue’ to have. Imagine if no vaccines had been developed yet.

In reply to captain paranoia:

> Yeah. For all the talk of 'Plan B' (whatever that is), I'm not sure 'Plan A' has ever been spelt out clearly.

In a practical sense "Plan A" is relying solely on vaccination and a few people voluntarily wearing masks.

In reply to Misha:

> Reflecting on this more widely, in a perverse way, debating the merits of restrictions on the unvaccinated is a nice ‘issue’ to have. Imagine if no vaccines had been developed yet.

We are certainly in a vastly better place, for many reasons, than we would have been had this happened in, say, 1990.

In reply to Misha:

>We all want to be ‘free’ of Covid and that it entails, as far as possible.

I don't think that is a given.  Without commenting on the validity of the view, a very large number of people take the view that it's here, it isn't going away and so we just have to put up with it.

 Hardonicus 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Even if hospital admissions are 50/50 as you say (I haven’t checked), it would still be largely a disease of the unvaccinated, given there are a lot more vaccinated people - especially in the demographics which account for most hospital admissions. 


Yes and no. The wording is precise and aimed to promote a specific angle. I should say that I am in maybe a not so unique position of having a proportion of my family  who are anti vax. Interestingly, those very same members brought me up to be very science literate to the point where I now have an academic career in engineering. I am therefore extremely aware of the way that government policy and science communication is actually feeding the horrific misinterpretation of data that is propogated on Twitter etc.

 Misha 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I don't think that is a given.  Without commenting on the validity of the view, a very large number of people take the view that it's here, it isn't going away and so we just have to put up with it.

I agree with that, which is why I said ‘as far as possible’. However, if we were to get vaccine uptake into the high 90%s for everyone who is recommended for vaccination, as with older age groups, coupled with regular boosters, I don’t think we’d be worrying about healthcare strain due to Covid or vaccinating the small minority of the unvaccinated or potential lockdowns. If it rumbles on at say 2-3k cases a day, it wouldn’t be a big deal. 

 Misha 21 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

I may be missing something but which wording are you referring to? Disease of the unvaccinated is a bit vague but it’s clear that unvaccinated people are much more likely to end up in hospital / ICU if they catch Covid. 

 TomD89 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Hardonicus:

There is no justification for them other than handing more control to the government. You can see from the replies here that it really is about squashing individualism and pushing for collectivism. People pushing these measures rarely demonstrate they have considered the wider implications for our society moving into the future and possible consequences of such actions. There's no doubt in my mind that any precedent set in this current virus scenario will roll over into other areas in the future (social credit/environment are the most likely IMO).

I get the desire to reduce cases/deaths, but people need to take a wider view here. The ability to make personal decisions about your own health is not something you can just handwave away as a deranged freedom mania. 

At minimum I would expect a public vote, crystal clear scientific justification, open debate, and demonstrable consideration of the wider societal and ethical implications with iron clad time limitations on the measures to even consider it. If you don't want all these things before proceeding with implementation, I have to wonder why.

To quote a fellow in this thread:

> Those who resist now are either too thick and need govt intervention or alternatively,  are on the side of the weirdos, anti vaxxers, right wing nutjobs, conspiracy theorists or just plain belligerent (I wont be told what to do with my body brigade). The former I have some mild sympathy with. The latter, quite frankly, should be rounded up and sent to an unihabited island given the problems they are creating.

You can see how the combination of media demonization of a group and government intervention to 'solve' the problem of dissenters can quickly turn into negative labelling, othering, un-personing and then a lot of ugly 'solutions'. Be careful what your willing to do to others now, because the winds can change and that government you gave power to could decide you are the the 'thick, weirdo nutjob' that needs to be coerced, re-educated, imprisoned, segregated or worse.

8
In reply to TomD89:

> At minimum I would expect a public vote, crystal clear scientific justification, open debate, and demonstrable consideration of the wider societal and ethical implications with iron clad time limitations on the measures to even consider it. If you don't want all these things before proceeding with implementation, I have to wonder why.

If your concern is the ´squashing individualism and pushing collectivism’ why would you be any more likely to comply after a vote than now?  We already have a clear majority of the population voting with their feet and doing their bit by being vaccinated, … and a dangerous minority prioritising their perverse contrarianism over the rights of everyone else.

The reason we don’t think freedom of expression should include the right to drive the wrong way up the motorway is because it’s a danger to everyone, not just those exercising their right to be different.

1
In reply to TomD89:

>  The ability to make personal decisions about your own health 

Only it's not just personal health, there are consequences for other people's health, provision of hospital services, the economy.. 

> Be careful what your willing to do to others now,

I'm not forcing anyone to be vaccinated, but I don't think the unvaccinated should be attending any mass gatherings, large indoor events, flying etc.  They have their choice, but their decision shouldn't impact others and if you aren't vaccinated they need to accepted there are restrictions, that's life suck it up. 

The same with protesters, fine if you don't want a jab, etc..  but it doesn't give them the right to preach to others, or riot, lobby schools and so on. 

2
 mrphilipoldham 22 Nov 2021
In reply to summo:

Again, so you’re fine with someone vaccinated but infected enjoying all life’s little pleasures, but not someone unvaccinated but uninfected? That is pure and simple punishment. There’s no other way to describe it. 

2
 nThomp 22 Nov 2021
In reply to TomD89:

I am vaccinated and would certainly encourage others to be, but have to begrudgingly agree with you.

Drugs are regularly pulled for safety reasons and I can sympathise with vaccine hesitancy towards any recently developed treatments, especially amongst populations who are low risk. The more the hesitant are villainised for being so the more it emphasises their point. Talk of denying, or charging for, care in their particular case is crossing a line we are otherwise unwilling to cross for other 'problem' groups: the obese, smokers, sportspeople, and plenty of others also clog our health system. Do we talk seriously about denying them treatment during winter peak seasons?

As an aside, I took a very close interest in the Kyle Rittenhouse case unfolding in the USA over the last few months. The dividing lines on his pre-trial assumptions of guilt or innocence, and the media representation of it, clearly overlayed the dividing lines of for/against covid measures.

The case exposed a media that completely misrepresented his actions and guilt. Some would say it outright lied in the interests of supporting a certain political standpoint. Likewise the US President, Vice President, and a number of prominent politicians and progressive pundits. Even after the evidence has been reviewed and proven otherwise, they appear to be doubling down on their stances.

This is the same media that is also trying to encourage vaccine uptake and who criticise those who don't.

The outcome of this, all neatly encapsulated in a singular event and court case, will be a renewed mistrust in the media and politics. A belief that people are being lied to, coerced, and victimised on account of their politics.  The pro-vaccine case is not well made by a media that aligns itself against the interests and views of the people it is trying to convince. I hope the UK can stay clear of this polarisation but the talk here inclines me to think otherwise.

2
 wintertree 22 Nov 2021
In reply to nThomp:

> As an aside, I took a very close interest in the Kyle Rittenhouse case unfolding in the USA over the last few months. 

I bet “you” did.

2
 nThomp 22 Nov 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Hard to pick up tone from a forum posting, but am I missing something?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Again, so you’re fine with someone vaccinated but infected enjoying all life’s little pleasures, but not someone unvaccinated but uninfected? That is pure and simple punishment. There’s no other way to describe it. 

The vaccinated person has done everything in their power to minimise the risk they'll be seriously ill, that they'll not be ill longer and spread it to others, that they'll have no lasting bodily damage, that they won't become a hospital case etc.  They should be allowed where possible to live normally.

What has the unvaccinated person done?

It's not a punishment there is a choice. But everyone else should be allowed a choice too, it can't only be the unvaccinated deciding how they want society to function. 

Post edited at 08:56
1
In reply to nThomp:

> This is the same media that is also trying to encourage vaccine uptake and who criticise those who don't

This is the same media pushing covid denial, 'let it rip' and anti-vax. Or pushing brexit.

If your point is that the media is being used to manipulate us, then yes, I agree. It always has, to some extent, but it seems increasingly so. If your point is that the media is only being used for one point of view, then I disagree.

ps. You don't have to look to the US for evidence of politicians or media lying to us. The last ten years has seen truth and accountability significantly eroded.

Post edited at 09:05
2
 TomD89 22 Nov 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> If your concern is the ´squashing individualism and pushing collectivism’ why would you be any more likely to comply after a vote than now?  We already have a clear majority of the population voting with their feet and doing their bit by being vaccinated, … and a dangerous minority prioritising their perverse contrarianism over the rights of everyone else.

I personally wouldn't comply with vaccine passports regardless, but people have used the argument that 'majority of the public would be for Plan B type measures'. I say prove it, have a vote. Being for vaccination does not automatically equate to being for vaccine passport mandates. 

You also have subsets who are for one dose, or two doses, but certainly not for being compelled into twice annual boosters every year. These are very different propositions and not clearly delineated by any leadership. Nor any timeframes or restraints on the mandates put forth. 

With recent advances in drugs and other treatment therapies, as well as emerging less symptomatic variants, I can't see a clear justification. We're being needlessly divisive and playing with more dangerous forces than covid with measures like this.

> The reason we don’t think freedom of expression should include the right to drive the wrong way up the motorway is because it’s a danger to everyone, not just those exercising their right to be different.

But covid isn't a danger to everyone, and the vaccines aren't free of risk. So there has to be scope for personal choice in the matter. Having a choice about what goes into your body isn't 'expression', it's fundamental. To suggest otherwise effectively grants ownership of your person to the collective. This isn't how our society works, you can't start plucking out cornerstones and not expecting the structure to collapse.

If you take this mandated, collective responsibility approach, then where exactly does that stop? How does that not logically advance into a social credit system? I've seen many people say climate is a bigger problem than covid, so in a blink you can have a digital, tracked population restricted and controlled for all manner of environmental and public health justifications. It's totally foolhardy and ill considered to put that much faith in our dear leaders I'm afraid.

Post edited at 08:59
2
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Again, so you’re fine with someone vaccinated but infected enjoying all life’s little pleasures, but not someone unvaccinated but uninfected? That is pure and simple punishment. There’s no other way to describe it. 

Someone vaccinated but infected is legally obliged to be self-isolating.  Someone unvaccinated enjoying all life's little pleasures is someone who is about to become infected, and possibly hospitalised. 

1
In reply to TomD89:

> I personally wouldn't comply with vaccine passports regardless,

What do you mean by comply?  It's a choice.  Currently, you can choose not to be vaccinated and not automatically get the QR codes on your NHS app (or get the paper copies), in which case you can't travel internationally.  It's up to you. 

Post edited at 09:15
In reply to nThomp:

> As an aside, I took a very close interest in the Kyle Rittenhouse case unfolding in the USA over the last few months. The dividing lines on his pre-trial assumptions of guilt or innocence, and the media representation of it, clearly overlayed the dividing lines of for/against covid measures.

This is a massive diversion, but I'm just back from the states and it's the interpretation of the pretty clear facts of the case as disclosed in court that divides between reasonable people and the hard right NRA libertarians.  Please feel free to discuss on an appropriate thread...  


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...