UKC

Vaccine passports: human rights vs travel?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 yorkshire_lad2 04 Apr 2021

Vaccine passports (to get into events & pubs etc) seem to be the hot topic of the moment.  There seems to be a fair bit of opposition against them too (some quoting human rights, some pub landlords opposing them et al)

I don't have a strong view either way as I have no desire to congregate much, nor travel much at the moment.

I wager that as soon as people realise they will probably need some sort of certification - let's call it a "vaccine passport" - of vaccine (or a reason not to have one etc e.g. medical, or a test) to go on their foreign holiday (and also football matches), there will be a stampede of people wanting a vaccine passport that will speak for itself...

6
 wintertree 04 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Human rights is a door that swings both ways.  

The rights of the many to have functional healthcare systems outweighs the rights of the few to go on a foreign holiday without taking any steps to mitigate their contribution to the very real and growing risks of this situation.

14
 girlymonkey 04 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I also suspect if some pubs or other indoor spaces insist on passports and some don't, those who do will do better. I would choose a well regulated indoor venue over an unregulated one, and I imagine many would after the year we have just had.

7
 elsewhere 04 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

You don't have a human right to enter another country for leisure/business/work - you are subject to that country's immigration law (and now, their covid law).

Vaccination passports look inevitable for international travel. Far less restrictive than a mandatory quarantine when entering another country or returning to UK.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/booking-and-staying-in-a-quarantine-hotel-when-you-arrive-in-england

How much you’ll need to pay

Rate for 1 adult in 1 room for 10 days (11 nights) £1,750

Additional rate for 1 adult (or child over 12) £650

Additional rate for a child aged 5–12 £325

As skog says below, domestic usage is a different can of worms.

Post edited at 12:31
1
In reply to wintertree:

Also, needing to prove you've been vaccinated to go somewhere isn't a new thing at all, it's just going to be a bit more widespread for a while, due to, well, a pandemic that has killed millions worldwide!

A vaccine passport to allow people to do things within the UK is a bit of a different matter. I don't mind the idea, really, but that's probably because I'm not that bothered about doing the sort of things that are likely to require it.

2
 wercat 04 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

This is a recipe for trouble and grossly unfair/inequitable until everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated.  Till then it is a recipe for social division, anger and trouble.  To test such an idea on such a coveted venue as a Cup Final is lunacy - the stakes and passions will be very high for such an event and I expect big trouble.  But then, who'd ha thunk any diffrent with a government of all the talents such as we have.

I thnik discrimination against people who wilfully will not vaccinate will have a place but I'm 100% against it until the whole population has been given the opportunity to satisfy the requirement.  Plus there must be an alternative to mobile phone technology - we don't run a data contract - emergency use only as otherwise it is too expensive.

Post edited at 12:46
5
 Si dH 04 Apr 2021
In reply to wercat:

For the cup final I think everyone will see it positively because the alternative will be to have no fans there.

I am less optimistic than girlymonkey about people choosing to go to pubs that require vaccinations or tests, at least until vaccination uptake is very high. Undertaking a covid test is pretty unpleasant. If there one a pub asking for proof of a test and another next door not asking, then I'd be very surprised if many teens or twenty-somethings voluntarily took a test to go in the pub that required them.

Interesting thing for me in the news today was that the proposed certificate would also allow you to count as immune if you could show you had had a positive test in the previous six months, hence likely having natural immunity. In principle I think that's a good idea but again I worry whether it could induce some strange behaviours amongst groups at very low risk.

Overall I'm supportive once everyone has been offered a vaccine but not before, and as long as it is time-limited.

 wercat 04 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH:

all fair points.  I forgot, though to mention one of my real concerns - that these details are leaked unofficially before the actual announcement and also that the announcement is not made in Parliament so the press are possibly briefed before our elected representatives.  The BBC is showing itself to be an Instrument of non Parliamentary democracy in this respect, together with the mostly Tory press.  This really worries me for the future, possibly more than "The Bill" of current protests.  Without proper parliamentary democracy it is irrelevant what is in a particular Bill as anything can be pushed through.

The Bill simply reinforces the process by attempting to discourage protest.

It is almost a sideshow - it draws fire while the schwerpunkt is left unopposed

Post edited at 13:09
4
 Danbow73 04 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I'm completely against it for anything in the uk until everyone has been offered a vaccine. We've asked young people to stay at home to protect the elderly then thanked them by penalizing them at the first opportunity. 

We better be sure we won't need any more restrictions because I suspect the compliance will be much reduced as a result of this.

6
 neuromancer 04 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Nobody vaccinated old people to screw over young people - the disease disproportionately impacts old people. So they were vaccinated first.

How is this inequitable?

Old people will die sooner. Young people are generally healthier. Are these things unfair? I literally have no idea why vaccine passports are such a drama. They don't 'penalise' the young, because without a vaccine nobody should be socially mixing.

Two options:

1. Passports a thing: Vaccinated people can mix more, unvaccinated people have to wait, mongs who avoid the vaccine have to wait, but people can see a way out and adhere to rules until they have a vaccine.

2. Passports not a thing: Everyone has to wait, people get tired and break the rules more, covid spikes.

How is this not a utilitarian good? How can 1 possibly be worse than 2?

PS I haven't been vaccinated and don't expect to be for months but just don't see why other people should sufffer just so I can feel "Fair".

Post edited at 15:59
32
In reply to wercat:

It's also quite immature for those not vaccinated to opposed those who are enjoying something. It's in everyone's interest things open up.

20
 Danbow73 04 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

Could the same argument not be applied in March last year? Why should all the 20 something's stop going out and enjoying themselves when they would only suffer a mild illness... 

10
In reply to Danbow73:

> Could the same argument not be applied in March last year? Why should all the 20 something's stop going out and enjoying themselves when they would only suffer a mild illness... 

March 20; Because they'd spread the virus to others? Non vaccinated people mixing etc.  

April 21, A vaccinated person in a public venue, surrounded by other vaccinated people isn't the same risk. 

7
In reply to Danbow73:

> 20 something's stop going out and enjoying themselves when they would only suffer a mild illness... 

Less chance of serious illness, not zero chance. 

3
 Dave B 04 Apr 2021
In reply to Danbow73:

We were joking that when we can go to  the pub with our vaccine 'passport' it'll be full of older persons over 50 and young healthcare workers between 18 and 30.

Lots of May to December romances?

1
 Dave B 04 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> Less chance of serious illness, not zero chance. 

Absolutely this. And not just those who have underlying health conditions. 

 mondite 04 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> Less chance of serious illness, not zero chance.

Which is also the case now with vaccinated people. Plus you have all the staff who are very unlikely to be protected.

As for immature. No its called acting as part of a society and ensuring all are treated as equally as possible during the pandemic. The most at risk are being protected first to save their lives not so they can go out and party. Its basically a reverse of the barrington declaration which was nutty enough in its original form but is far worse when disadvantaging those who are least at risk.

5
In reply to mondite:

> No its called acting as part of a society and ensuring all are treated as equally as possible during the pandemic.

I don't think viruses really care about equality etc.. they'll do what they do regardless. A non vaccinated person is statistically likely to fair worse and transmit more, than a vaccinated person. That's the whole point of vaccinating. 

8
 Dave the Rave 04 Apr 2021
In reply to neuromancer:

> Nobody vaccinated old people to screw over young people - the disease disproportionately impacts old people. So they were vaccinated first.

> How is this inequitable?

> Old people will die sooner. Young people are generally healthier. Are these things unfair? I literally have no idea why vaccine passports are such a drama. They don't 'penalise' the young, because without a vaccine nobody should be socially mixing.

> Two options:

> 1. Passports a thing: Vaccinated people can mix more, unvaccinated people have to wait, mongs who avoid the vaccine have to wait, but people can see a way out and adhere to rules until they have a vaccine.

> 2. Passports not a thing: Everyone has to wait, people get tired and break the rules more, covid spikes.

> How is this not a utilitarian good? How can 1 possibly be worse than 2?

> PS I haven't been vaccinated and don't expect to be for months but just don't see why other people should sufffer just so I can feel "Fair".

A noble and mature post.

7
 Dave the Rave 04 Apr 2021
In reply to Danbow73:

> Could the same argument not be applied in March last year? Why should all the 20 something's stop going out and enjoying themselves when they would only suffer a mild illness... 

Not necessarily. I know quite a few 20 somethings who had it quite bad and a lot of older who were asymptomatic including myself. 
Youth is not a cloak of invincibility unfortunately.

4
In reply to Dave the Rave:

Exactly, whilst it's not extreme, there are still several hundred under 40s who've died. If they'd socialised freely in the last year it would have been higher. 

I don't see why many in the UK are obsessed with blowing it at the last minute, all for the sake of a pint, or a holiday. Patience is certainly a virtue. 

6
 neilh 04 Apr 2021
In reply to neuromancer:

You will be offered a vaccine in the next 2/ 3 months as per the vaccination plan. Make sure you take up the offer.

5
 Dave B 04 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

... And many more whose lives will be blighted by poor health for a long time, if not for ever.

1
In reply to Dave B:

Plus, whilst most under 30s will survive, letting it rip at the end could increase the number of mutations and risk sending the world spiralling right back to stage 1 (minus the million plus who've died already). All for the sake of a couple of months. 

3
 mondite 04 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> I don't think viruses really care about equality etc.. they'll do what they do regardless.

Actually it does, sort of, in terms of health outcomes. Something to bear in mind when you want to put those unvaccinated staff at risk so those who were protected first for their health can get back to enjoying themselves. However, of course, I was talking about the society..

 mondite 04 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> I don't see why many in the UK are obsessed with blowing it at the last minute, all for the sake of a pint, or a holiday.

And yet you seem to be supporting opening up society when the vaccination program is at the most dangerous stage. Perhaps best to wait really?

In reply to mondite:

> And yet you seem to be supporting opening up society when the vaccination program is at the most dangerous stage. Perhaps best to wait really?

You open up for those protected, every week thousands more will join them. 

7
In reply to mondite:

> Actually it does, sort of, in terms of health outcomes. Something to bear in mind when you want to put those unvaccinated staff at risk so those who were protected first for their health can get back to enjoying themselves. However, of course, I was talking about the society..

The guidelines still say distancing and masks. Don't mix if you have any symptoms or contact with someone whose been positive. It's unlocking in a mildest sense of the word. 

Plus, it's not exactly been the oldies running wild unmasked on the streets protesting recently. It's the kids, I'd have more faith in the oldies to be responsible. 

5
 Dave the Rave 04 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> Exactly, whilst it's not extreme, there are still several hundred under 40s who've died. If they'd socialised freely in the last year it would have been higher. 

Indeed

> I don't see why many in the UK are obsessed with blowing it at the last minute, all for the sake of a pint, or a holiday. Patience is certainly a virtue. 

Personally, I’ve had my jabs and am not interested in going to the pub or abroad, I haven’t had a passport for 20 years.

Not a clue where there mindset is. This should be a consolidation year with some testing of the water re. Pubs and events.

Theres nothing to be gained from going backwards.

 mondite 04 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> Plus, it's not exactly been the oldies running wild unmasked on the streets protesting recently. It's the kids, I'd have more faith in the oldies to be responsible. 

Leaving aside the obvious thing that the oldies dont have much to protest about really compared to the youth have you looked at churches and garden centres recently? Every time I go past the local garden centres the car parks are packed with oldies having their normal fun. The hidden away church had a crammed carpark with oldies walking in when I cycled by today.

However you do raise an interesting point. So what do you think would happen when those kids see those oldies being given additional freedom simply because they were protected due to their risk? Dont you think they might start asking pointed questions about the vaccination order and asking why shouldnt the high risk simply protect themselves by sheltering? A flawed idea but one which sadly got some traction even before idiots started suggesting giving them greater freedom due to them getting the vaccine.

But with that I am out. These conversations never go anywhere.

3
In reply to mondite:

A garden centre, gosh they are living it wild. I can understand why the youngsters are jealous. They've had a year of lock down salivating over Suttons catalogues, I bet the minute those pensioners are amongst the seed racks all inhibitions are gone, along with social distancing. Just like youngsters and alcohol in bars. 

14
In reply to summo:

> It's also quite immature for those not vaccinated to opposed those who are enjoying something. It's in everyone's interest things open up.

I don't think it's immature, I think it taps into a very normal, human instinct of fairness. If your mates are all going out partying because they happen to work in healthcare or whatever, and you're not allowed, that will generate an emotional reaction in people which is entirely natural.

If you went to a meal with a load of people, and the people with blue eyes were all given fillet steak and lobster, but everyone else just got a slop of gruel, those with green and brown eyes would be really pissed off.

If you don't account for human emotions, then yes I agree, it's in all of our interests to open up the pubs etc to the vaccinated while keeping the others locked down. If you begin to consider how people will feel, and the things they'll do to get round it, and the distrust of the government, and the abuse that the venues will get and the requirement for policing the resentment, etc, etc, it's obviously a shit idea.

It doesn't matter if you think that those emotions are "immature". Those emotions will drive people's behaviour, and cause a right mess in society which will be more hassle than its worth.

Post edited at 20:43
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:

But life is unfair, covid is unfair, everyone can't be vaccinated magically on the same day. But that's not a reason to delay unlocking, businesses need trade, any trade. 

Edit. I say this as someone who'll be lucky to see a vaccination this side of September, I'll just have to suck it up. Yeah it's not ideal, but it certainly could be worse.

Post edited at 20:50
9
 Dave the Rave 04 Apr 2021
In reply to mondite:

Unprecedented times unfortunately. 
The younger protected the elder in the last two world wars with no qualms. For which everyone is surely grateful.
No one is asking that they do similar to those brave folk, but being last in line for a vax and its privileges isn’t too much to ask?

Ive got kids ranging from 14-26, and none of those are making a fuss, nor their mates.

It must be different elsewhere?

 Dave the Rave 04 Apr 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Is that where the saying ‘ the green eyed monster’ originated?. I’ve got steely blue eyes, like Paul Newman but they might alter depending on the dish offered)

In reply to summo:

The problem isn't the emotions that people will feel, it's the behaviour that those emotions will generate. It's actual practical consequences.

Through the pandemic, or more specifically through the second wave, I have seen that in our society, the mainstream view is that it's fine to chuck anyone you like under the nearest bus, for money. Your gran's dead? So f*cking what, I made a few quid. F*ck you.

I'm just suggesting that actually, if rather than chasing a bit of money of right now, you pursue policies that keep society running smoothly (less violence, more cooperation, more goodwill, more generosity) then that's actually more efficient in the long run. Sure, we want businesses not to close down, which is why the government has supported them. But it's a matter of political choice whether to make the next few weeks the make-or-break for businesses. If we can get this far on government support, we can wait until the roll-out is complete to avoid further breakdown of social cohesion, and for the government not to be despised by all those who lose out.

I know sounds it mad. Putting something as trivial as social cohesion ahead of a few weeks business. Barking bat shit mental, aren't I?

Post edited at 21:24
5
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's not mad, but for every business that restarts, that's potentially less furlough payments, no bankruptcy, unemployment etc..  it's all working in the same direction. 

Maybe social cohesion has to also come from some tolerance, some understanding and patience, it's potentially safer in all respects to unlock slowly, month by month. 

Many pensioners and those who have been shielding have barely seen daylight for a year. Many youngsters have had far more freedom. 

3
In reply to summo:

> It's not mad, but for every business that restarts, that's potentially less furlough payments, no bankruptcy, unemployment etc..  it's all working in the same direction. 

I'm not disputing that there's money to be saved.

> Maybe social cohesion has to also come from some tolerance, some understanding and patience, it's potentially safer in all respects to unlock slowly, month by month. 

> Many pensioners and those who have been shielding have barely seen daylight for a year. Many youngsters have had far more freedom. 

These kind of comments are very common, but pointless - they relate to how you think other people *should* behave. It doesn't matter how they *should* behave, all that matters is how they *will* behave.

High street of your average slightly fighty ordinary small town on a Friday and Saturday night when the pubs are open but the youngsters aren't allowed in them. What do you see happening? All the young lads sat at home, politely waiting for their vaccines, while the older folk go for a nice quiet drink, along with the vaccinated middle class doctors and dentists, plus nurses and careworkers?

Not what would you like it to look like, or what it should look like. What would actually happen? What would it be like for the publicans? Would they be that grateful of the trade, or would they just wish they had the support for a few more weeks so they didn't have to deal with trying to police two-tier society? Work through the consequences in terms of human behaviour, not just lines on a spreadsheet with a sprinkling of moral judgement!

Post edited at 21:58
3
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> Unprecedented times unfortunately. 

> The younger protected the elder in the last two world wars with no qualms. For which everyone is surely grateful.

Sorry I can't participate, war is bad for my mental health. 

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Who says pubs have to open under the old style british model, drink as hard and as fast as can from 6pm until midnight ish, on a Friday and Saturday. They could reopen with shorter hours, seating only etc... where the focus is to socialise, not get smashed? Yeah I know it won't happen!! 

5
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

2 thoughts about Vaccine Passports:

1)The govt are creating a higher demand for vaccine compliance in the younger demographic who might otherwise be less inclined to take up the offer.

2) Is this another cynical attempt by the current govt at mass data collection with a view to “mis use”(if done via an app).

1
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

According to the nurse who gave me mine one dose of AZ means that after 3 weeks you have a 70% reduced chance of getting corona badly enough to need hospital treatment.   Which is great in terms of reduced personal risk, but is it as good as a recent negative PCR test as an indication you won't spread corona to others?

Different countries using different vaccines with different separation between doses is going to make it difficult to get agreed common criteria for a vaccine passport.  

 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Have you actually done a Covid test? 

It's not fun, but pretty unpleasant is a bit of a stretch.  Slightly unpleasant maybe.  

I'm doing them twice a week anyway as are plenty of others, including children age 11 and up.  It's really not that bad.

If the NHS staff can put up with doing them so they can look after people, if the kids can do them for school I think its entirely reasonable for people to suck it up and do a test if they want to go to the pub.  It's not forever.  

3
 DaveHK 05 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

As ever on these threads, lots of people saying someone else should take a hit on something.

2
 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I am undecided but the points we need to consider before the introduction of vaccine passports will include:

Considering at what age bracket the possible risks from the vaccine outweigh the risks from Coronavirus.

Asking whether it might be prudent to wait a number of years to establish whether there are any long term risks from vaccination, and if so, what these risks might be.

Addressing the possible discrimination of ethnic minorities and certain religious groups who for cultural or religious reasons do not wish to have the vaccination.

Considering how we should deal with pregnant mothers or other groups for whom the vaccines have not yet been tested or approved?

How we deal with the issue (if certain freedoms are to be removed) of Coercion and how this would breach both current EU/UK Human Rights laws, and the Nuremberg convention.

How do we address the issue of a two tier society that could be created, where the unvaccinated might be considered dirty, unwelcome etc.  Vaccine apartheid if you like.

If the vaccinations work to protect the vaccinated as they are claimed to do, and since there are now many scientific papers claiming that asymptomatic transmission of the virus is rare, establishing whether there is a need to vaccinate everyone in any case?

Considering whether the huge cost (tens of billions) of setting up a vaccination passport system might be much better spent elsewhere to improve the health outcomes from people suffering from other serious medical conditions, or to help the NHS treat the large number of people with Long Covid symptoms etc?

Whether we should indeed be vaccinating our young people who are at very low risk of Covid-19, or whether the more ethical thing to do once our elderly and vulnerable have been vaccinated her in the UK is to give up our allocation of vaccines to other countries to help with the vaccination of their elderly and vulnerable, to save lives in other countries and to help open up borders?

Considering the possibility of the setting of a precedent where it is the government, and the wishes of the majority, not us as the individual, who has the overall authority to decide what is right for our own bodies.

Whilst many of us agree with vaccination, and some with possible coercive measures like vaccine passports in this instance for Covid-19, we need to consider the future and what if the reverse was true, and others in society were mandating for their safety that WE should be the ones needing to take a medical treatment against our will, and if we don’t we should have our freedoms restricted?  Would we all be happy with this one?

As you can see, much food for thought and complicated stuff.

Post edited at 08:27
12
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> The points we need to consider before the introduction of vaccine passports will include:

> Considering at what age bracket the possible risks from the vaccine outweigh the risks from Coronavirus.

Vaccine Passports (VP) are only being considered for adults as children can't receive a vaccine, yet. There is a small but serious risk to almost anyone from covid. 

> Asking whether it would be prudent to wait a number of years to establish whether there are any long term risks from vaccination, and if so, what these risks might be.

How many people are you willing to die before you are sure there are no long term effects? Death is a pretty serious and lasting effect!

> Addressing the possible discrimination of ethnic minorities and certain religious groups who for cultural or religious reasons do not wish to have the vaccination.

That's their lookout though isn't it? Refusing to take a vaccine is a personal choice but I would say other people's health is more important to be protected from an infectious and deadly disease. I don't see how any group of people could complain about discrimination when there is a universal solution.

> How should we deal with pregnant mothers or other groups for whom the vaccines have not yet been tested or approved?

Some trials on pregnant women have begun. I expect if one or more vaccines are approved for pregnant women then it will be optional if an expectant mother wants it, the hooping cough vaccine is offered optionally. In the future most expectant mothers will have already been vaccinated.

> How we deal with the issue (if certain freedoms are to be removed) of Coercion and how this would breach both current EU/UK Human Rights laws, and the Nuremberg convention.

Public health matters set a very high bar for protecting the majority rather than the individual. Yes, most parts of the world have seen massive restrictions on freedoms but they have been mostly accepted as a necessary evil. Everyone wants to get back to normal as quickly as possible, in the absence of an alternative vaccines are a part of our life, like it or not.

> How do we address the issue of a two tier society that could be created, where the unvaccinated might be considered dirty, unwelcome etc.  Vaccine apartheid if you like.

As other posters have said, the young have given up a lot to protect the elderly. They can rightly object to VP until they all have a chance to get a jab. Avoiding a two tier society is important.

> If the vaccinations work to protect the vaccinated as they are claimed to do, and since there are now many scientific papers claiming that asymptomatic transmission of the virus is rare, establishing whether there is a need to vaccinate everyone in any case?

Others are better placed to answer this on a transmission perspective but you can forget about holidays or travel abroad without jabs. The fear of missing out is a strong one.

> Would the huge cost (tens of billions) of setting up a vaccination passport system not be much better spent elsewhere to improve the health outcomes from people suffering from other serious medical conditions, or to help the NHS treat the large number of people with Long Covid symptoms perhaps?

Prevention is better than a cure.

> Whether we should indeed be vaccinating our young people who are at very low risk of Covid-19, or whether the ethical thing to do once our elderly and vulnerable have been vaccinated her in the UK is to give up our allocation of vaccines to other countries to help with the vaccination of their elderly and vulnerable, to save lives in other countries and to help open up borders?

A big risk of mutations developing which sets us back to square one. We should donate spare jabs to other countries but I expect my government to prioritise residents of the UK first.

> The possible setting of a very dangerous precedent where it is the government, and the wishes of the majority, not the individual who has the overall authority to decide what is right for our own bodies.

You can refuse to have a vaccination.

> Whilst many of us agree with vaccination, and possible coercive measures like vaccine passports in this instance for Covid-19, what about in the future if the reverse was true, and others in society were mandating for their safety that WE should be the ones needing to take a medical treatment against our will, and if we don’t we have our freedoms restricted?  Would we all be happy with this?

Hmm, not sure in what scenario this would happen. VP and restrictions are only palatable if most adults are at risk. 

3
In reply to Baggy's Point:

At a practical level, I don't see the advantage in a vaccination passport for pubs and restaurants.  I think it will be overtaken by events: by the time they could have the passports ready the vaccination program will have given almost everyone a first dose.  The high level of vaccination will have suppressed the virus and the risk will be low even for unvaccinated people.  

Then, a few months later, if we are unlucky a new variant the vaccines don't work on will appear and the vaccination passport will be meaningless again.  

It just seems the period of time where a vaccine passport would actually be useful - while there are still a lot of unvaccinated people and before there are vaccine resistant strains - is too short for it to be worth the effort.

Post edited at 09:06
 john arran 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

I don't know if you realise or intended it, but your post reads like a scattergun attempt to limit any negative consequences for people who selfishly choose not to be vaccinated.

1
 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

Funny, but I have the impression if you’d been in the site 12 months ago, you’d have been arguing we had to not lock down to save the economy.

The choice ahead is between

  • More delayed reopening of various sectors of the economy and a delayed restoration of more freedoms to more people 
  • More freedoms returned sooner and more reopening at the cost of a temporary passport scheme.

To take an entirely one sided view over loss of some freedom associated with a vaccine whilst not recognising the return of many freedoms they bring is distinctly one sided IMO.

Several of your questions call out to scientific evidence as if to support them as points, but you cite nothing and I disagree that things are anything like as you claim in those cases.  I’m not going to get in to them because I’ve a funny feeling you’re not acting in good faith here.

Why do I think this?  Apart from a brand spanking new account you’ve a lot of carefully crafted emotionally laden stuff that totally ignores the reality.  You bang on about vaccines in relation to “long term risk”, children, young people and coercion.  But... the “passport” being considered for the UK includes options for a recent negative test and for proof of antibodies from a past infection.  So it’s more of a “covid risk reduced” passport, and nobody has to get a vaccine to have one.

> How do we address the issue of a two tier society that could be created, where the unvaccinated might be considered dirty, unwelcome etc.  

That’s the whole bloody point.  Once everyone has been offered a vaccine, someone who has declined that, who does not have or will not be tested for natural antibodies, and who refused to take a free LFD test is considered a higher risk and therefore may be unwelcome in higher risk venues.  But of course you knew that already.

1
 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to john arran:

> I don't know if you realise or intended it, but your post reads like a scattergun attempt to limit any negative consequences for people who selfishly choose not to be vaccinated.

Brand new account, one token climbing post and 10 minutes later a long anti vaccination post.  Same astroturfing plonker who was being paid to encourage us all to let it rip last March through to last November I suspect.

Or I’m starting to wonder if it’s all a troll. 

 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

> Vaccine Passports (VP) are only being considered for adults as children can't receive a vaccine, yet. There is a small but serious risk to almost anyone from covid.

Here is the actual ONS data that shows the risk for over and under 60's.  The risk for under 40 is negligible by anyones definition: 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation%26areaName=England#card-deaths_within_28_days_of_positive_test_by_date_of_death_age_demographics_-_above_and_below_60

Here is the breakdown by age:

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths?areaType=nation%26areaName=England#card-deaths_within_28_days_of_positive_test_by_date_of_death_age_demographics

> How many people are you willing to die before you are sure there are no long term effects? Death is a pretty serious and lasting effect!

This is interesting and we all have different perceptions of life, death and risk.  Some people think that every death is a tragedy, one too many, and should be prevented at all cost to everything else.  Others would tale a pragmatic approach and say that death and disease are sadly a normal and often unavoidable part of life.  The question perhaps is more how much resource we put in to trying to prevent death from Covid, v's how much we divert resources from other areas of healthcare and allow people to go about their normal lives.

> That's their lookout though isn't it? Refusing to take a vaccine is a personal choice but I would say other people's health is more important to be protected from an infectious and deadly disease. I don't see how any group of people could complain about discrimination when there is a universal solution.

It would probably be considered Coercion if the freedoms of those who for whatever reason do not wish to take a vaccine are to be discriminated against in some way.

> Some trials on pregnant women have begun. I expect if one or more vaccines are approved for pregnant women then it will be optional if an expectant mother wants it, the hooping cough vaccine is offered optionally. In the future most expectant mothers will have already been vaccinated.

Results are not expected at the earliest from these trials for at least another 18 months.  What do we do in the meantime?

> Public health matters set a very high bar for protecting the majority rather than the individual. Yes, most parts of the world have seen massive restrictions on freedoms but they have been mostly accepted as a necessary evil. Everyone wants to get back to normal as quickly as possible, in the absence of an alternative vaccines are a part of our life, like it or not.

But many people would not consider getting back to normal as having to divulge your medical status to commercial or government organisations every time you want to access a gig, flight, shop, pub etc.

> As other posters have said, the young have given up a lot to protect the elderly. They can rightly object to VP until they all have a chance to get a jab. Avoiding a two tier society is important.

Yes agreed.

> Others are better placed to answer this on a transmission perspective but you can forget about holidays or travel abroad without jabs. The fear of missing out is a strong one.

> Prevention is better than a cure.

Yes but at what cost to other areas of healthcare and the economy and society at large?  Our economy and health are intrinsically linked?

> A big risk of mutations developing which sets us back to square one. We should donate spare jabs to other countries but I expect my government to prioritise residents of the UK first.

The furthest mutation/variation from the original virus so far detected in just 0.3% difference in makeup.  This is insignificant in terms of whether a vaccination will work.  As we know the elderly are very vulnerable, young people and children at very little risk - see ONS data above.  Should we not do the selfless thing and prioritise the saving of lives worldwide rather than resort to Nationalism?

> You can refuse to have a vaccination.

Very difficult to refuse a vaccine if refusal means restrictions on your freedoms and rights - see Coersion.

> Hmm, not sure in what scenario this would happen. VP and restrictions are only palatable if most adults are at risk.

Most adults are not at any meaningful significant risk.  It is the over 60's and more specifically the over 70's who are at far greater risk.  Again see ONS data linked to above. 

7
 SDM 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> Interesting thing for me in the news today was that the proposed certificate would also allow you to count as immune if you could show you had had a positive test in the previous six months, hence likely having natural immunity. In principle I think that's a good idea but again I worry whether it could induce some strange behaviours amongst groups at very low risk.

Do they want covid parties? Because that's how you get covid parties.

I had hoped that we had seen the last of the lunacy of incentivising people to catch covid in order to gain freedoms when the stupidity of it was pointed out nearly a year ago when there was first talk of past infections earning you greater freedoms.

 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> It would probably be considered Coercion if the freedoms of those who for whatever reason do not wish to take a vaccine are to be discriminated against in some way.

As I said above, the current trial includes options for an antibody test (past infection) and a recent negative covid test.  The news today is awash with stories about free test kits being made available to all adults twice a week.

So, talk of coercion into a vaccination is just crap, isn’t it?

When it comes to foreign travel, proof of vaccination is a long standing requirement for various areas and diseases and has never been considered coercion...

> The furthest mutation/variation from the original virus so far detected in just 0.3% difference in makeup.  This is insignificant in terms of whether a vaccination will work.

That second sentence is total bullshit and I suspect you know it.  You’re pushing misinformation with an agenda in bath faith.  Please go away.

> Most adults are not at any meaningful significant risk.  It is the over 60's and more specifically the over 70's who are at far greater risk.  Again see ONS data linked to above. 

You don’t appear to have linked the ONS.  Did your brief include showing their deaths/100k and subtly misrepresenting it as actuals, using the low population of very old to severely (about 8x IIRC) under represent the risk to younger people?  That’s standard MO for the misinformation poster.  

Post edited at 09:45
1
 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH & SDM:

> Do they want covid parties? Because that's how you get covid parties.

At some point, if the goal of vaccination is to move us to an endemic status largely protected by immunity that is updated by new variants circulating under partial cross-immunity sufficient to prevent much death or hospitalisation, that’s not the same disaster it would have been a year ago, and at some point we have to accept general uncontrolled circulation.  

But not for another 3 months absolute minimum; incentivising it now could backfire., 

Post edited at 09:42
1
 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> The choice ahead is between

> More delayed reopening of various sectors of the economy and a delayed restoration of more freedoms to more people 

> More freedoms returned sooner and more reopening at the cost of a temporary passport scheme.

> To take an entirely one sided view over loss of some freedom associated with a vaccine whilst not recognising the return of many freedoms they bring is distinctly one sided IMO.

The removal of freedoms and the timing of giving back to us is a political decision.  We were told back in the new year that once the over 70's were vaccinated things could return to normal.  Yet the vaccines have greater efficacy and greater uptake than we ever though possible but suddenly  it now needs to be the over 50's, then the over 30's, then the children, and now we are told we need vaccine passports and ongoing mass testing at great expense to ever get back to the a 'new normal', not normal.  The goalposts keep on moving.

Do we need to spend billions on vaccine passport schemes when most people have been vaccinated?  Or should we spend those billions on improving things like cancer care instead?  It is all about proportionality here.

> > How do we address the issue of a two tier society that could be created, where the unvaccinated might be considered dirty, unwelcome etc.  

> That’s the whole bloody point.  Once everyone has been offered a vaccine, someone who has declined that, who does not have or will not be tested for natural antibodies, and who refused to take a free LFD test is considered a higher risk and therefore may be unwelcome in higher risk venues.  But of course you knew that already.

But if the over 70's (99% of deaths) have all had a vaccine with a 90% efficacy we have already removed most of the risk?  How much further should we focus all of our attention on Covid, at the expense of many other things to further reduce those last few percentage points of risk which conceivably will never reduce to 0%?

9
 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

Frreeeeeddooooom!

Away with you.

2
 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Oh look, another new poster spouting anti vax Covid isn't dangerous nonsense.

1
 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> As I said above, the current trial includes options for an antibody test (past infection) and a recent negative covid test.  The news today is awash with stories about free test kits being made available to all adults twice a week.

You mean this one:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56632084

Which says that:

"The latest data shows that, of the 4.2 million lateral flow tests taken in schools and colleges in the week from 18 to 24 March, 4,502 returned a positive result."

and also:

"The government said that for every 1,000 lateral flow tests carried out, there was less than one false positive result, and the rapid tests were particularly useful at detecting high levels of virus."

I am not sure if anyone has done the maths here but 1 in a 1,000 false positives out of 4.2 million tests is 4,200 false positives, out of a total of 4,502 positives.  So 4,200 false positives and just 302 actual positives?

So does mass testing of asymptomatic (used to be called healthy) people still make any sense or is it just a huge waste of money and resource.  Another huge transfer of public wealth to Hancock and his mates?

Post edited at 09:51
7
In reply to wintertree:

> Or I’m starting to wonder if it’s all a troll. 

The OP smelled like their usual work to me, but the account behind it seems to have a bit more to it than usual so I was unsure enough to read the whole thread.

These responses though, absolutely standard.

 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

Your points are all over the place.  Misrepresentation, deceit and a general attempt to sow discontent with any steps towards lowering the risk, all under a badge of...  Wait for it...

Freeeeedoooom!  Liberty!!’n11121

Away with you.

1
 neilh 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

The risk for most people  is hospitalisation( and all that entails) for a lot of people across a wide age range . Most people recover. Hospitalisation  is not good for those people ,the healthcare system , society and the economy. 
 

The deaths are just a  part of the overall health picture.

 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Have you noticed how they almost always edit a post?  The coincidences are stacking up this week.  

 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Oh look, another new poster spouting anti vax Covid isn't dangerous nonsense.

New yes but have never said that Covid was not dangerous.  It can be very dangerous to some people, just that the risks for anyone under 60 and healthy are very small.  We need to get things into perspective here.  I have backed this up with ONS data, not conspiracy nonsense.

Anti-Vax, no not at all, and have and will continue to take vaccines for many things.

Difference of opinion, possibly.  I assume this, and a healthy debate on the subject is allowed?

11
In reply to wintertree:

PM'd you last week. Check the email account you use for UKC.

 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> PM'd you last week. Check the email account you use for UKC.

Will do.  If I don’t get a “YHM” they can be missed as about half of UKC mails go to SPAM for some reason  [...] Ah yes, thanks. Good. Indeed.  Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I've also notified that most days seem to have a bunch of additions of the randomish usernames, so either it's a script he/she runs nearly every day, or that's just something UKC does itself for some reason.

 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I think all websites over a certain size just get hammered by fake account signups.  If you ever run a machine with public access from the internet, the server logs could make you weep.  It’s a cesspool out there.  I imagine a not insignificant amount of effort goes in to identifying and shutting down this stuff re: stealth advertising etc.

In reply to wintertree:

The names looked a bit too formulaic to me for that explanation, but it could be I guess.

 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I’d love to read a - suitably anonymised - blog piece from the site owners on what they’ve learnt about the various bad actors on here over the last year.

  • Pacific coast covid misinformation poster?  
  • Split personality trolls?  Sighted
  • Ukrainian anti vaxx accounts? Sighted, confirmed, blocked

Running a forum must almost be more hassle than it’s worth.

 jkarran 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Danbow73:

> Could the same argument not be applied in March last year? Why should all the 20 something's stop going out and enjoying themselves when they would only suffer a mild illness... 

Because they would form a reservoir of virus which caused very significant harm to others (and themselves indirectly through the harm done elsewhere). They're not analagous situations.

I don't see us getting organised enough for domestic 'passports', the whole thing, leaked, unowned, it stinks of more divisive culture war trolling.

Jk

In reply to wintertree:

I'd definitely read that

 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Wintertree, instead of suggesting a conspiracy theory of fake accounts, why can't you just accept that others who use UKC have a different opinion to you?

I was a regular long term user on here but have had to sign up again today because my account got banned a couple of weeks back for posting views that some don't agree with.  Nothing conspiracy related, just some observations using the official ONS data to back them up.  Very strange!

Part of the reason that people disagree is that instead of responding to alternative opinion with a reasoned argument, people get shouted down, banned, censored, called conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers, covid-deniers etc.  Or the are subject to childish taunts such as:

"Freeeeedoooom!  Liberty!!’n11121" 

You have your opinion, I have mine.  But all your childish taunts do is undermine your own position, suggest you don't have anything valid to say in response, and make you look rather silly.  If you want to have a debate, fine, but why not respond in a reasoned way instead of resorting to playground banter.

You can perhaps start by telling me why my post above in relation to the false positive rate in mass testing of healthy people is wrong.

9
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> I was a regular long term user on here but have had to sign up again today because my account got banned a couple of weeks back for posting views that some don't agree with.  

No need for introductions. We know.

 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> Wintertree, instead of suggesting a conspiracy theory of fake accounts, why can't you just accept that others who use UKC have a different opinion to you?

Because here you are in a new account Gish galloping and ignoring points put to you.

> I was a regular long term user

Who?  I see no reason you can’t tell us which account was yours before the ban. The only account I’m aware of that’s been prominent with views well aligned to some of yours is not as of right now suspended.

>  had to sign up again today because my account got banned a couple of weeks back for posting views that some don't agree with.  Nothing conspiracy related, just some observations using the official ONS data to back them up.  Very strange!

I don’t recall that post or that thread, is it still there to share?

> "Freeeeedoooom!  Liberty!!’n11121" 

> You have your opinion, I have mine. 

Yup, and I have my opinion of you and your actions here,

> But all your childish taunts do is undermine your own position, suggest you don't have anything valid to say in response

I have plenty to say, that’s clearly not in question, but I have little of substance to say to you.

> and make you look rather silly. 

Everyone needs a role in life.  I’m glad mine isn’t some shill for an organisation looking to just make everything worse.

> If you want to have a debate, fine, but why not respond in a reasoned way instead of resorting to playground banter.

There’s nothing to debate with you.  For example you’ve repeatedly ignored my comment that coercion doesn’t apply to potential “passport” system given the role of natural antibodies and tests.

> You can perhaps start by telling me why my post above in relation to the false positive rate in mass testing of healthy people is wrong.

Well, it totally misses the point, but then you already knew that, didn’t you?

Every time you crop up with a new account I hear the Levellers in my head screaming “Liberteeeeee.”.

 Si dH 05 Apr 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Have you actually done a Covid test? 

Five (4 PCRs andd 1 LFT.) All pretty unpleasant, some very.

> I'm doing them twice a week anyway as are plenty of others, including children age 11 and up.  It's really not that bad.

I have also had to do three PCRs on my son aged 3. Unpleasant is an understatement for those. It needed two of us to hold him still. From what the guys at the test centre said, he made less noise than most young kids!

So I know what I'm talking about, thanks.

For what it's worth my point wasn't that young people would refuse a test to go to the pub. It was if offered two choices (A) a test and then go in a pub where you know everyone has been tested and (B) Just go in a pub without any testing regime, then I think most young people would take option B, if they haven't done a test for other reasons.

Post edited at 10:39
In reply to wintertree:

I've seen this movie before, and the sun is trying to break through here, so I'm going to leave the lingering fart to linger alone for today. Suggest similar.

 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> There’s nothing to debate with you.  For example you’ve repeatedly ignored my comment that coercion doesn’t apply to potential “passport” system given the role of natural antibodies and tests.

It does since antibodies do not last in the blood stream indefinitely, they fade over time.  This is fairly basic immunology stuff.  Hence someone who had and recovered from Coronavirus last spring is probably now unable to prove they had it.  And who want's to rely on regular tests with the looming possibility of a false positive ruining things?  Not to mention the costs and inconvenience of regular tests.

> You can perhaps start by telling me why my post above in relation to the false positive rate in mass testing of healthy people is wrong.

> Well, it totally misses the point, but then you already knew that, didn’t you?

You brought up the point regarding mass testing, I responded.  Again it is relevant above to the passport situation.  But it looks like you either can't or conveniently won't answer this because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative?  Am I right?

6
 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> I've seen this movie before, and the sun is trying to break through here, so I'm going to leave the lingering fart to linger alone for today. Suggest similar.

Short hand for I'm out of here because I can't think of a reasoned response backed up by the actual data.

6
 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

Who was your long time user banned account?

> preferred narrative?

Bingo.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

That's mostly just SPAM accounts. Most don't get through the email activation. Those that do will generally get picked up by the anti-SPAM checks when they post on the forum or just put some dodgy website on their profile.

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

Interesting to know. Thanks!

 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to wintertree:

Here you go again Wintertree, the mass testing you referred to:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56632084 1

Which says that:

"The latest data shows that, of the 4.2 million lateral flow tests taken in schools and colleges in the week from 18 to 24 March, 4,502 returned a positive result."

and also:

"The government said that for every 1,000 lateral flow tests carried out, there was less than one false positive result, and the rapid tests were particularly useful at detecting high levels of virus."

I am not sure if anyone has done the maths here but 1 in a 1,000 false positives out of 4.2 million tests is 4,200 false positives, out of a total of 4,502 positives.  So 4,200 false positives and just 302 actual positives?

So does mass testing of asymptomatic (used to be called healthy) people still make any sense or is it just a huge waste of money and resource.  Care to comment yet?

4
 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> I am not sure if anyone has done the maths here but 1 in a 1,000 false positives out of 4.2 million tests is 4,200 false positives, out of a total of 4,502 positives.  So 4,200 false positives and just 302 actual positives?

So it is possible that only 7% of the positive test results are actually positive, the remaining 93% are false positives.

Haha, still strangely quiet on the Western Front!

4
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: 

> It just seems the period of time where a vaccine passport would actually be useful - while there are still a lot of unvaccinated people and before there are vaccine resistant strains - is too short for it to be worth the effort.

I'm tentatively assuming that they're playing a long game against new variants here going through next winter. Looking at the logic of what goes into the proposed pass fail it's presumably antibodies present or negative PCR or any vaccine shot. If these categories are subdivided and dynamically added to as new variants/vaccines/boosters appear it essentially becomes an ongoing on off switch for access to all sorts of 'events'.

And as we've already seen, there's no way of ensuring equitable supply of vaccines when looked at through the lense of restrictions rather than health.

 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Fair enough.  

I certainly don't anticipate testing 3 year olds for pub visits. 

I don't know if you are right or not, as far as I can tell most of the teenagers found them unpleasant the first time or 2 and now are ok with them.  For me personally I'd got it into my head that it was going to be awful, and then the reality wasn't as bad as the imagination.  

I personally would rather test and vaccinate as much as possible, but with the proviso that tests can be wrong and vaccines aren't 100% so we need to be not throwing caution to the wind.  

 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

I started a thread on LFT accuracy on those lines some time ago, you'll remember if you were here.  

As I understand it a LFT result can be backed up (or not) with a PCR test.  

If LFT picks up some cases it is probably worth it was the conclusion...

I'm not sure if that thread is in the pub and gone or in off belay.  Feel free to have a search.  

 Si dH 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> So it is possible that only 7% of the positive test results are actually positive, the remaining 93% are false positives.

> Haha, still strangely quiet on the Western Front!

You seem to have moved on to the pros and cons of mass testing, as opposed to covid-free certificates.

The issue of false positives can be addressed through confirmatory PCR testing. Even if there were 10 million LFT per day, which would be a pretty high take-up I think, at 0.1% that would be 10,000 confirmatory PCR tests required that would be otherwise unnecessary, which is a small fraction of PCR capacity. The PCR system is fast now, I got test results back for myself and my son within 12 hours a couple of days ago. You can infer from the dashboard that 80-90% come back in the day of or following the test and virtually all the rest on the next day. So the potential for false positives to cause a major problem no longer really exists.

That said I do have significant reservations about the mass testing programme, associated with (1) using LFT to screen people and (2) ensuring people do the tests properly at home and record the result honestly. It'll be interesting to see the details of how it is all going to work.

 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> As I understand it a LFT result can be backed up (or not) with a PCR test.  

A PCR test requires time, normally anything from 24hrs to 3 days.  Not sure how will this help someone being turned away from a flight, gig or event they've booked tickets for?

> If LFT picks up some cases it is probably worth it was the conclusion...

But at what cost?  We are spending billions on testing.  Might there be a better way as a society we could spend that money to improve healthcare outcomes for all? 

Also what is a case?  The media and government seems to have got their definitions very confused on this one.  The common medical definition of a case usually requires / involves someone presenting with 'symptoms'.  The reasons for symptoms can then be confirmed if needed by testing.

All a positive test result shows is the presence of the Sars-Cov-2 virus.  This is totally different from a case of Covid-19, which is the disease that presents symptoms.

Very important to differentiate, particularly now the jury is significantly out on the likelihood of asymptomatic transmission, with several studies now showing that this is very uncommon. 

As a guess (and it is a total guess), this might partly explain why Covid-19 transmission rates in hospitals have often been far higher than in the community, since people in hospital are normally in hospital due to displaying symptoms, i.e. actual cases.

Post edited at 11:55
3
In reply to Si dH:

> You seem to have moved on to the pros and cons of mass testing, as opposed to covid-free certificates.

Changing the subject almost as often as the username is standard procedure for this one.

 Baggy's Point 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Changing the subject almost as often as the username is standard procedure for this one.

Anything grown up to add yet?

4
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> But at what cost?  We are spending billions on testing.  Might there be a better way as a society we could spend that money to improve healthcare outcomes for all? 

Given that a number of senior members of the government have derived enormous pleasure over the years from sticking stuff up their nostrils, I think it's to be applauded that they are willing to offer this opportunity to the unwashed masses.

 Si dH 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> A PCR test requires time, normally anything from 24hrs to 3 days.  Not sure how will this help someone being turned away from a flight, gig or event they've booked tickets for?

This can be addressed easily by setting the period during which you must have a negative test before you attend an event or fly somewhere*. If it's set at one day then I agree you have a point and some people who have to cancel tickets etc may expect to be recompensed. It could easily be set at 3-4 days though, then you just need to take your test at the right time and be confident you will get a confirmatory PCR back in time.

> But at what cost?  We are spending billions on testing.  Might there be a better way as a society we could spend that money to improve healthcare outcomes for all? 

This is a valid point. The government have spent massive amounts of cash on companies without a particular record of producing the things being procured, and whilst some risks of this kind are undoubtedly necessary, it would certainly be interesting to see the selection criteria and some of the alternatives that were being filed out. It might be more effective to spend money instead on better self isolation payments than extra tests. No-one really knows.

> Also what is a case?  The media and government seems to have got their definitions very confused on this one.  The common medical definition of a case usually requires / involves someone presenting with 'symptoms'.  The reasons for symptoms can then be confirmed if needed by testing.

> All a positive test result shows is the presence of the Sars-Cov-2 virus.  This is totally different from a case of Covid-19, which is the disease that presents symptoms.

I think this is garbage. You can have covid-19 either symptomatically, asymptomatically or with symptoms that don't meet the strict definition, which falls somewhere between the two extremes. In all cases you have covid-19.

> Very important to differentiate, particularly now the jury is significantly out on the likelihood of asymptomatic transmission, with several studies now showing that this is very uncommon. 

This is definitely garbage.

> As a guess (and it is a total guess), this might partly explain why Covid-19 transmission rates in hospitals have often been far higher than in the community, since people in hospital are normally in hospital due to displaying symptoms, i.e. actual cases.

They were higher early in the pandemic because there weren't good controls in place, no-one really knew what they were dealing with and you are concentrating many sick people under one roof where aerosol transmission can run rife. Of course, care homes present a counter to your hypothesis - the disease spread so rapidly, as I understand stand it, there because were many people with the disease who didn't realise because they were asymptomatic, so went around working between different homes and visiting people in many different rooms anyway.

* I don't think we should be using LFT as a reason to get on a plane. They should be used to further reduce risk in environments that would have opened anyway (like schools in March) as a defence in depth measure, not to open up new environments. The reliability is not high enough.

Post edited at 12:16
 elsewhere 05 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Does anyone think entry into the UK via an expensive (or unenforced) quarantine is better for the UK or for you the traveller than a vaccine passport?

Does anyone think entry into another country via an expensive (or unenforced) quarantine is better for the country you enter or for you the traveller than a vaccine passport?

 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Changing the subject almost as often as the username is standard procedure for this one.

They’ve moved on to increasingly narrow corner cases - example: someone who chooses not to be vaccinated, doesn’t test positive for antibodies, hasn’t had a PCR confirmed infection in the relevant window (6 months being mooted?) and then takes an LFD test within 24 hours of going to a gig/flight whatever instead of doing it a bit sooner or paying for a PCR test.

Next up, whinging a lot using words like “echo chamber” and so on?  Edit:  looks like they’re back to signing up for yet another email address and account before they get to the whingeing stage.

There’s two people behind a lot of these accounts I think; one is more clearly associated with the libertarians across the pond and the other I’ve never been sure.  It would fit with the MO of someone using multiple accounts to troll.  Although I don’t recall seeing any of that sort of thing around here.

Then again, I would say that given my (checks bingo scorecard) agenda.  Whateverthehellthatis.

Post edited at 12:46
1
 Si dH 05 Apr 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> Does anyone think entry into the UK via an expensive (or unenforced) quarantine is better for the UK or for you the traveller than a vaccine passport?

> Does anyone think entry into another country via an expensive (or unenforced) quarantine is better for the country you enter or for you the traveller than a vaccine passport?

Yes.

If the purpose of the travel restrictions is to prevent entry in to the country of variants that can evade the vaccine, then a vaccination and associated certificate is clearly inadequate to do the job.

 elsewhere 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> Yes.

> If the purpose of the travel restrictions is to prevent entry in to the country of variants that can evade the vaccine, then a vaccination and associated certificate is clearly inadequate to do the job.

Good point. Unfortunately means international travel is remains largely off limits indefinitely.

 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH:

Do variants show up on a test?  

If so then vaccine plus test would seem to be a plan. 

However if we can get pretty much everyone vaccinated then we should be able to stop the variants developing.  This is why we need to either have strong border control regarding testing quarantine etc and help other countries get their vaccine programs going.  

Post edited at 13:02
 wintertree 05 Apr 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

>> If the purpose of the travel restrictions is to prevent entry in to the country of variants that can evade the vaccine, then a vaccination and associated certificate is clearly inadequate to do the job.

> Good point. Unfortunately means international travel is remains largely off limits indefinitely.

It will depend I think on what vaccine evasion means in the long run, when most people in the UK have had a full round of "first generation" vaccine.

To paint one speculative picture:  It seems likely vaccine evasion could mean infection but not severe illness, at which point if we achieve > 90%+ vaccinated and the other 10% is largely refusals rather than medical exemptions, keeping variants out "at nearly all costs might not be the appropriate way forwards, compared to letting them circulate like a cold or flu in those who are vaccinated, updating immunity as they go.  It sucks for those who chose not to be vaccinated, but so does every other diseases people choose not to be vaccinated against, and we don't hold up society for them.  But they have to be <10% or so of people (depends strongly on hold-out demographics) to avoid healthcare overload.  Those who get less protection from the vaccine and those who aren't vaccinated are increasingly protected by improved therapeutics, with more significant improvements in the pipeline (hopefully interferon beta and JAK inhibitors, maybe MABs).  Arguably keeping travel out once vaccination is complete leaves our immunity falling behind the ever evolving virus - and having our immunity decoupled from this virus until its emergence seems to be why it was such bad news in the first place.

But, this is very speculative on my behalf and as we move towards it, caution, continuous monitoring and assessment and a willingness to reevaluate policy are the way to hopefully get there without more disasters on the way.

Perhaps it won't turn out like that, and the variants will become more and more lethal (there's a long way to go in lethality as shown by SARS-nCov-1 and MERS-nCov) and will escape the vaccine more fully, and we're more reliant on therapeutics, but I don't think so.  I certainly hope not.

1
 Si dH 05 Apr 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Do variants show up on a test?  

I'm not an expert on that but I believe all the current variants of concern show up on a test as covid positive, but are not identifiable as a specific variant of concern. Some with a particular mutation are identifiable in most of the UK's PCR tests because they show up without a specific gene, and this helped us track the Kent variant spread. However the SA and Brazilian variants don't have that particular mutation so they look like the 'old' virus.

> If so then vaccine plus test would seem to be a plan. 

I agree, together with a period of self isolation or quarantine to ensure nothing slips through the test, which depending on level of risk. However, I think judging level of risk based on destination is really difficult. I have never thought through it in depth, but an article I read yesterday was making the point that if you stay in a hotel in a country with low prevalence and thought to have few variants in circulation, you might still find a family from Cape Town or Manaus sat next to you at the pool (and more likely, lots of Americans, Germans and other Europeans with quite a few variant cases floating around at home.)

> However if we can get pretty much everyone vaccinated then we should be able to stop the variants developing.  This is why we need to either have strong border control regarding testing quarantine etc and help other countries get their vaccine programs going.  

Agree with this too. The progress we have made with vaccines is great but we should be trying to use it to help other countries as well as ourselves sooner rather than later, not doing so is short sighted for all sorts of reasons.

Post edited at 13:26
 elsewhere 05 Apr 2021
In reply to wintertree:

I keep thinking the virus is very "vaccinable" - multiple vaccines work and work for variants SO FAR.

In countries with both higher prevalence of variants and millions vaccinated (eg many European countries) I've not seen reports saying vaccine X does not work for variant Y.

I'm not saying the vaccines work just as well for all variants but they do seem to be good enough to make the difference.

Post edited at 13:30
In reply to Si dH:

The only viable endgame is to live with it as flu 2.0, so as you and others have said (and I've said on the first 3 or 4 repeats of this thread), whatever way it goes vaccine passports will necessarily be a dot in history soon after they're instigated. They'll be a thing that existed for a few months in 2021 that never really worked.

Latest episode of Science Vs is worth a listen. It's all about variants, vaccine effectiveness against them, and touches on the what happens next.

In reply to elsewhere:

> I'm not saying the vaccines work just as well for all variants but they do seem to be good enough to make the difference.


More data coming in on this all the time. Seems to be indicating that in some cases (and it varies a lot) the vaccines aren't as good at preventing infection but they're still very good at preventing serious illness, and extremely good at preventing deaths.

 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH:

I could be wrong, but I was of the impression that "by the pool" is reasonably low risk because its outside, presuming that it's not so crowded that there isn't a gap between families.  

I guess its sitting inside bars and restaurants that will be an issue. So countries with the weather and facilities for everyone to sit outside will probably be ok.  

My main issue would be sitting on a plane with several hundred people for several hours.  

I was hoping to go to rural France by tunnel which seems pretty much the lowest risk, but it seems that Macron has lost the plot.  

We shall see what happens.  

 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Won't it be necessary to have proof of booster vaccines and new variant vaccines?  

I really don't want to be sat on a plane next to crazy anti vaxxers.  

1
In reply to marsbar:

> Won't it be necessary to have proof of booster vaccines and new variant vaccines?  

How would that work? You can't jab 7 billion people the day after every new variant shows up. Once the first round is over it would all be so out of sync all round the world that it would rapidly end up making no sense in the international travel use case.
For the domestic going to the pub use case it'll be moot even sooner, because everyone should have been offered a jab within weeks of anything being able to open. So you might as well just make the anti-vaxxers stand out so you can refuse them entry. Something like a tin foil hat maybe?

 elsewhere 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> More data coming in on this all the time. Seems to be indicating that in some cases (and it varies a lot) the vaccines aren't as good at preventing infection but they're still very good at preventing serious illness, and extremely good at preventing deaths.

12 months ago that would have sounded like an improbable miracle.

I think vaccine passports will be around a while, it will take at least several years to vaccinate the world and it might never happen in some places due to conflict or other dieases being a higher priority.

Post edited at 14:22
In reply to elsewhere:

> 12 months ago that would have sounded like an improbable miracle.


Still does, but I'll take it.

 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Maybe tell them that pubs cause autism and planes work on 5G?  

 druridge 05 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Vaccine Passports aren't new; in the Merchant Navy we were all issued with them, we got in the habit of handing them over with our 'normal' passports. I still use mine when I get jabs for travel to parts of Asia. Covid is just going to become another stamp (although I guess there will be an app. or swipe card).  

 MonkeyPuzzle 05 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

The thought of being served by young people working in pubs (those lucky enough to have jobs in the age groups whose pandemic-induced joblessness has been highest) and them not allowed to stay for a drink rankles with me a great deal.

In this country we're very good at solidarity on the downward slope and ditching it on the way back up.

This is why I'm certain that's exactly the route we'll choose.

 marsbar 05 Apr 2021
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I thought it was a vaccine or test situation. Hopefully those waiting on the vaccine will be testing. 

In reply to Baggy's Point:

> "The latest data shows that, of the 4.2 million lateral flow tests taken in schools and colleges in the week from 18 to 24 March, 4,502 returned a positive result."

> "The government said that for every 1,000 lateral flow tests carried out, there was less than one false positive result, and the rapid tests were particularly useful at detecting high levels of virus."

My new business plan is to sell the Tories a Covid test consisting of a dice.   You roll it four times and if they all come up sixes you are positive.   For every 4.2 million dice tests you get 3240 positive results and the false positive rate across all tests is less than 1 in 1,296.

Better yet my tests are completely reusable and I'm only going to charge £1 billion for the kits instead of £37 billion.

Post edited at 17:38
5
 fred99 05 Apr 2021
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> The thought of being served by young people working in pubs (those lucky enough to have jobs in the age groups whose pandemic-induced joblessness has been highest) and them not allowed to stay for a drink rankles with me a great deal....

The one thing that will delay any indoor pub (etc.) requirement for Covid Passports will be simple logistics.

Most staff in pubs, restaurants, etc. are young. Therefore the staff will not yet be vaccinated. Without (young) staff these businesses will not be able to operate normally. Therefore passports (or tests) for indoor activities are effectively moot, as there won't be more than a very few indoor activities that exist until vaccinations (or regular testing which allegedly gives the same "safety") work down to the younger age groups.

As for the "never-vaccers", stuff them. They're a potential reservoir or new variants, and the infection (and therefore potential death) of those few people for whom vaccines cannot be used*.

* These people are obvious exceptions, who simply need to take precautions, just as they do with other potential infections.

2
In reply to Gerry Gradewell:

> I'm tentatively assuming that they're playing a long game against new variants here going through next winter.

That is possible.  This may not be about 'vaccine passports' but about building infrastructure for a more general system that gives a YES/NO permission to do certain things based on e.g. a QR code displayed on your phone.

Once they have the databases, phone app and systems for checking the displayed code they can easily change the criterion according to future circumstances.  But it might be easier to sell initially as a vaccine passport.

 LastBoyScout 05 Apr 2021
In reply to skog:

> Also, needing to prove you've been vaccinated to go somewhere isn't a new thing at all, it's just going to be a bit more widespread for a while, due to, well, a pandemic that has killed millions worldwide!

Agreed - just of the top of my head, some countries require proof of yellow fever vaccination in order to enter the country.

> A vaccine passport to allow people to do things within the UK is a bit of a different matter. I don't mind the idea, really, but that's probably because I'm not that bothered about doing the sort of things that are likely to require it.

I think Wercat hits the nail on the head in the subsequent post to yours.

 jkarran 06 Apr 2021
In reply to Baggy's Point:

> The removal of freedoms and the timing of giving back to us is a political decision.  We were told back in the new year that once the over 70's were vaccinated things could return to normal.  Yet the vaccines have greater efficacy and greater uptake than we ever though possible but suddenly  it now needs to be the over 50's, then the over 30's...

We were told brexit would be glorious too. Go figure. There's nothing sudden about it if you've been paying attention, we're lead by populist liars with a poor grasp of a situation their bluster can't change so each time reality becomes inescapable the bluster changes.

> Do we need to spend billions on vaccine passport schemes when most people have been vaccinated?  Or should we spend those billions on improving things like cancer care instead?  It is all about proportionality here.

You can't do cancer care with covid rife. Hopefully vaccination is effective enough and widely enough accepted that we're left with a relatively minor seasonal problem and periodic booster drives to keep pace with evolution but if not then reality denial doesn't get us anywhere good, we have to face the problem we have and apply the least worst tools at our disposal. So yes, maybe 'passports' do have a place, maybe they are the least worst remaining option. Maybe not, it's not yet really clear.

> But if the over 70's (99% of deaths) have all had a vaccine with a 90% efficacy we have already removed most of the risk?  How much further should we focus all of our attention on Covid, at the expense of many other things to further reduce those last few percentage points of risk which conceivably will never reduce to 0%?

It's not about reducing risk to 0. We stick with controls until we can operate a near normal economy without killing tens of thousands of people and once again crippling our already damaged and backlogged healthcare system. If nothing changes for the worse variant and baseline-prevalence wise we should be on track for pretty safe, relatively normal life by the time widespread first doses are available to the 40s. It's just maths, until something changes anyway.

That said I do feel sorry for the imunosuppressed and those at-risk who've been tricked into eschewing the vaccines who will have to live through the big third wave of infections that vaccine vs unlocking race unleashes. They have another year of pain and worry ahead.

jk

1
 elsewhere 06 Apr 2021
In reply to jkarran:

Funny how those who espouse a lack of caution wrt a natural virus usually espouse caution wrt to the medically tested vaccines. 

 Andrew Wells 06 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

How exactly am I supposed to prove I've been vaccinated anyway? I mean I have, but it was like a month ago now and I dunno if I have the paperwork still.

 girlymonkey 06 Apr 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

Your Dr records have that information. I presume the system has some simple way for GPs records to be passed on at your request.

2
 Andrew Wells 06 Apr 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

This seems like a weird situation though. Like what do I do? Call them and ask them to send me a letter? Take the letter to the pub? Do I need to turn up to the Doctor's and ask them to give me a card?

I just can't help but feel like this all seems very impractical.

7
 girlymonkey 06 Apr 2021
In reply to Andrew Wells:

If it is going to be rolled out nationwide, they will tell you what to do! I would guess that it will be an app which has the capability to talk to the database at your GP. You select something to say that you want them to access this and the app does it. I am guessing from a position of pure ignorance, but whatever the system is, it will be publicised and you follow the instructions!

2
In reply to girlymonkey:

> If it is going to be rolled out nationwide, they will tell you what to do! I would guess that it will be an app which has the capability to talk to the database at your GP. You select something to say that you want them to access this and the app does it. I am guessing from a position of pure ignorance, but whatever the system is, it will be publicised and you follow the instructions!

Either that or they'll go full Windrush, corrupt the database, shred the records and then place the population under house arrest for not being able to prove they've been vaccinated...

 TomD89 07 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I can see no potential negative consequences of having everyone required to carry electronic medical records to go about their lives domestically or abroad. I am totally for this wonderful idea that will save many lives. This is the fantastic new normal we have all long desired and hopefully we can have the government track more about us after the success of the initial vaccine and test status trial.

Let's collectively limit undesirables as much as possible, remembering that we will never ever become one of them as long as we are good boys and girls who always follow the rules of the day.

I look forward to laughing at those mad idiots that fail to get their 5th booster as they are denied entry to the supermarket and are fired from their jobs for putting us all in serious mortal danger.

Perhaps once everyone's used to this, we can implement a 'green rating' system, so if you are contributing too much net waste/carbon we can limit those peoples movements. We need to think bigger here.

Post edited at 07:39
5
In reply to Andrew Wells:

Had a letter from CExec yesterday saying records show I haven't had the vaccine yet and I ought to think about it seriously.

I had it 2 months ago via work and have an appointment in 2 weeks for the second.

I work for the NHS.

 ranger*goy 07 Apr 2021
In reply to cwarby:

If they don’t know their own staff have had it, there isn’t much hope for the rest of us.

 wercat 07 Apr 2021
In reply to TomD89:

indeed - we could impose FPNs on anyone not carrying their phone or having a well charged battery.  I like the cut of your jib.

 neilh 07 Apr 2021
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

It’s strange that the most successful democratic countries that have tackled the virus have even harsher guidelines - tracking your bank account. South Korea and Taiwan have been very successful. 
So what price do we put on so called freedoms vs death rates/ damage to economy/ damage to education etc etc.

cinsidering the amount of data held by say U.KC and Facebook / others I would suggest our sense of privacy etc is a bit warped .

In reply to ranger*goy:

Ethics aside, what about cost of a "passport"? NASA spends a couple of billion and puts a car on Mars, we spend a few billion on T&T and successfully contact a few people. Thought this interesting

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/19/covid-19-test-and-trace-scandal-its-not-too-late-to-change-the-story/

 ranger*goy 07 Apr 2021
In reply to cwarby:

I’m not actually sure we need them anyway. Assuming most adults accept the vaccination then any large events will have mostly vaccinated people. Why would you need to check this?
 

If it goes ahead, someone somewhere will be making a ton of money from it.

In reply to neilh:

> cinsidering the amount of data held by say U.KC and Facebook / others I would suggest our sense of privacy etc is a bit warped .

That's what makes me laugh, people complaining that the government will be able to track what restaurant or cinema they went to! Why would they care, and if they did they could just look at most folks Facebook, Snapchat , Instagram account.. where people even help by linking all their friends they went with. 

 girlymonkey 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

And the movement data that Google tracks as most people don't faff turning on and off their location settings! 

 Siward 07 Apr 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

As somebody said up thread, by the time the infrastructure has been set up to administer vaccine passports in pubs everybody will have been vaccinated anyway. It seems like a mammoth task to me. 

 girlymonkey 07 Apr 2021
In reply to Siward:

Certainly by the time the governments friends who run something totally unrelated get their big bung, then fail to deliver on it, then someone actually tries to sort out the mess.....

I think the idea is good in principle, but we do have the loonies running the asylum so I share the sentiment that it is likely to be less successful than it should be!

1
 GrahamD 07 Apr 2021
In reply to Siward:

Everyone I know had a piece of card given to them when they had the jab.

 TomD89 07 Apr 2021
In reply to wercat:

Just have electronic locking on all doors, no E-certificate, no entry, NO EXCEPTIONS.

Post edited at 09:55
 Siward 07 Apr 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

Not me!

Is that a card for one jab, both jabs, is it in any way secure (i.e. not easy to forge with a biro and a printer?), is there a scannable barcode? Remember that it is pub landlords and the like who will be expected to enforce this system so it would need to be foolproof and that's going to take time I think.

 girlymonkey 07 Apr 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

I didn't. Maybe each health authority has their own decision on that?

 elsewhere 07 Apr 2021
In reply to Siward:

> As somebody said up thread, by the time the infrastructure has been set up to administer vaccine passports in pubs everybody will have been vaccinated anyway. It seems like a mammoth task to me. 

Both the technology and human aspects have been tried and tested in Israel.

The UK has an existing vaccination database which now includes Covid that an app could talk to.

Hence it is far from mammoth! However I'm sure they can get somebody to fail to deliver at mammoth cost rather than buy off the shelf.

The difficulties could come from fixing human issues that go wrong. It would be interesting how much of a problem that has been in Israel.

 jimtitt 07 Apr 2021
In reply to Siward:

> Not me!

> Is that a card for one jab, both jabs, is it in any way secure (i.e. not easy to forge with a biro and a printer?), is there a scannable barcode? Remember that it is pub landlords and the like who will be expected to enforce this system so it would need to be foolproof and that's going to take time I think.


Well everyone else is going for an electronic/paper passport with a QR code that anyone can scan and access the various national databases which will be linked together. Except probably the UK one!

Us ex-Brits in Europe have to change our driving licences in the next few months, pity the UK database is no longer accessable from over the Channel.

In reply to Siward:

> Is that a card for one jab, both jabs, is it in any way secure (i.e. not easy to forge with a biro and a printer?), is there a scannable barcode? Remember that it is pub landlords and the like who will be expected to enforce this system so it would need to be foolproof and that's going to take time I think.

The challenge is the uk's starting point. It's not really progressed far with a decent secure ID system of any type, when most places ask for paper documents with your address on, a copy of a utility bill etc.  The kind of thing an average 12yr old could knock together in half an hour sat in their bedroom.

 elsewhere 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> The challenge is the uk's starting point. It's not really progressed far with a decent secure ID system of any type, when most places ask for paper documents with your address on, a copy of a utility bill etc.  The kind of thing an average 12yr old could knock together in half an hour sat in their bedroom.

None of which has prevented us getting passports and driving licences that are sufficiently secure.

Post edited at 11:16
 wercat 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

>  The kind of thing an average 12yr old could knock together in half an hour sat in their bedroom.

yes, that and the probability that the 12 year old is the offspring of a well heeled neighbour or friend of a cabinet minister might go a long way to explain the failings of Grant Shapps style websites used for serious purposes.

1
In reply to elsewhere:

> None of which has prevented us getting passports and driving licences that are sufficiently secure.

Uk Driving licences, which you had until recently carry a bit of extra paper or have a special extra code when hiring cars because the dvla system didn't connect up etc.. 

In much of Europe Driving licences double up as id, as good as a passport, have a scannable element that shops, health services, parcel collections and businesses can also scan verifying instantly who you are. 

To me at least, it feels like the uk is a decade behind in terms of digital services and security. 

In reply to elsewhere:

> None of which has prevented us getting passports 

Aren't uk passports made outside the UK? 

 neilh 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

Way out of date there. Just look at digital transformation in Govt Gateway.  Paper licences are last century and a dying breed.

In reply to neilh:

> Way out of date there. Just look at digital transformation in Govt Gateway.  Paper licences are last century and a dying breed.

I didn't mean the paper licence  it's the additional print out needed until recently when hiring, or the code they moved onto. 

Digital gateway, it is an improvement, it's slowly become a bit more encompassing over the last decade, I managed to renew my passport through it last year, once it eventually liked my photo. But it's still on catch up. 

 elsewhere 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> Uk Driving licences, which you had until recently carry a bit of extra paper or have a special extra code when hiring cars because the dvla system didn't connect up etc.. 

> In much of Europe Driving licences double up as id, as good as a passport, have a scannable element that shops, health services, parcel collections and businesses can also scan verifying instantly who you are. 

> To me at least, it feels like the uk is a decade behind in terms of digital services and security. 

We also have functioning shops, health services, parcel collections and businesses. Sometimes we pay with cards & phones. Often we use smart cards that work both on busses and for the throughput of major stations.

The technological barriers are minimal.

The human, political and civil liberty issues are not minimal.

 fred99 07 Apr 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> If it is going to be rolled out nationwide, they will tell you what to do! I would guess that it will be an app which has the capability to talk to the database at your GP. You select something to say that you want them to access this and the app does it. I am guessing from a position of pure ignorance, but whatever the system is, it will be publicised and you follow the instructions!

What about us "oldies" who don't have smartphones ?

Incidentally we are the same people that the "youngsters" have been complaining about getting passports before them. But the technology proposed as the method is the very technology that many older people have never had.

 fred99 07 Apr 2021
In reply to Siward:

> Not me!

> Is that a card for one jab, both jabs, is it in any way secure (i.e. not easy to forge with a biro and a printer?), is there a scannable barcode? Remember that it is pub landlords and the like who will be expected to enforce this system so it would need to be foolproof and that's going to take time I think.

Card for jab 1, with vaccine name, batch number and date given - had a space for the date of jab 2, but not filled in. My name was handwritten on it.

On reverse; "Make sure you keep this record card in your purse or wallet".

No barcode.

Yet to have jab 2.

In reply to elsewhere:

> We also have functioning shops, health services, parcel collections and businesses. Sometimes we pay with cards & phones. Often we use smart cards that work both on busses and for the throughput of major stations.

> The technological barriers are minimal.

Ignorance is bliss? 

> The human, political and civil liberty issues are not minimal.

Hardly, Scandinavia, not exactly known for evil big brother state regimes Seems to cope with far greater tech integration? 

 fred99 07 Apr 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> We also have functioning shops, health services, parcel collections and businesses. Sometimes we pay with cards & phones. Often we use smart cards that work both on busses and for the throughput of major stations.

> The technological barriers are minimal.

> The human, political and civil liberty issues are not minimal.

I remember going for a ride on one of my motorbikes some time ago. Got low on fuel so pulled into a garage and topped up. Went in to pay. There was a queue of people who only had cards to cover the amount they'd put into their cars, but the card systems- all of them - were "down". So I paid with cash and carried on about my business, leaving the "queue" stuck there. This has happened to me on two other occasions - I always carry cash as well as cards.

There have also been a number of occasions recently where computer systems for banks, phone companies and so forth have crashed. Sometimes due to an "upgrade" - who hasn't suffered from them at work - sometimes due to malevolent outsiders.

Remember also that outside of the major conurbations digital access is reduced, sometimes drastically, and the government has recently downgraded their promise to upgrade access to all.

Putting all our eggs in one basket is not necessarily the best option.

 elsewhere 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> Ignorance is bliss? 

I guess you have not seen app usage in vaccination centres. The vaccination database integration is up and running. 

> Hardly, Scandinavia, not exactly known for evil big brother state regimes Seems to cope with far greater tech integration? 

Different politics.

In reply to elsewhere:

> The vaccination database integration is up and running.

Integrated with what other agencies?  

> Different politics.

Different mentality of the population, which leads to different politics. An elected government or individual politicians is going to generally represent the views of those who put them there. 

In reply to fred99:

> Remember also that outside of the major conurbations digital access is reduced, sometimes drastically, and the government has recently downgraded their promise to upgrade access to all.

As I said early behind the times. No point in having a digital economy if a proportion of the land mass is still on dial up and copper wires. 

 elsewhere 07 Apr 2021
In reply to fred99:

I doubt the rest of the UK noticed the queues you encountered. Provided stuff works for most of the time it's not much of an issue when it doesn't.

Most of the UK has the internet connectivity for the minimal data requirements (kilobytes) to query a vaccination status database. Provided stuff works for most of the time it's not much of an issue when it doesn't.

I agree putting all eggs in one basket is not just dumb but dangerous during a pandemic.

However there's still vaccinations, social distancing, masks, alcohol gels, ventilation, outdoors, therapeutics and ultimately lockdown measures which all work now without an app.

 elsewhere 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> > The vaccination database integration is up and running.

> Integrated with what other agencies?  

With enough to ensure I got a letter, got a jab, record which jab & when/where I got jabbed.

That's all that's required to ensure I get another letter saying download this app and enter this unique key or scan this unique QR code to link the app on my phone to my vaccination record.

Yes an imposter could have got the jab and not me but the system doesn't have to be perfect. It just needs to be good enough most of the time. 

> Different mentality of the population, which leads to different politics. An elected government or individual politicians is going to generally represent the views of those who put them there. 

Hence "political and civil liberty issues are not minimal".

Post edited at 14:25
In reply to elsewhere:

So it's not actually integrated with any other agency then. Does it automatically populate your health records, available nationally? 

 elsewhere 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> So it's not actually integrated with any other agency then.

I hope not. 

Vaccination records don't need to be integrated with other agencies for vaccine passports.

It just needs an interface that will return a green/red status if I give somebody else permission by generating a one time QR code on my phone or swiping a smart card. It's mostly about handshaking to get my consent.

> Does it automatically populate your health records, available nationally? 

My digital health records are available nationally within the NHS. The records are sufficiently integrated to identify who to vaccinate & when by age/health condition and run a vaccination programme across the whole UK. That is more than sufficient for vaccine passports.

In reply to elsewhere:

So all that's need is some way a person can accurately and securely ID themselves at a venue, the venue's software can verify on the database a person has been vaccinated etc..  

But your phone, a smart card etc could anybody, passed around among friends. How will a venue know with certainty it's you? 

Post edited at 15:19
 Maggot 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> As I said early behind the times. No point in having a digital economy if a proportion of the land mass is still on dial up and copper wires. 


If we had returned a Labour government we'd be about 18 months into a 100% fibre connected country for the bargain price of £20bn by now. How people ridiculed that figure! Pennies now.

1
In reply to Maggot:

> If we had returned a Labour government we'd be about 18 months into a 100% fibre connected country for the bargain price of £20bn by now. How people ridiculed that figure! Pennies now.

Only £20bn... really? 

(Responding to the thread in general):

It has now been announced that the AZ vaccine should not be offered to below-30s, the risk/benefit ratio is inadequate. If this delays vaccination of those age groups, then the idea of vaccine passports before everyone has been offered the vaccine becomes indefensible. Yes, yes, "life isn't fair" but life appears to especially not be fair in the age groups that aren't the government's main demographic and are going to be the people staffing all of these open facilities that people are talking about and will be paying for this for the rest of their lives.

If this has to happen then regular testing must be the way to do it, a two-speed society will either cause unrest or will cause the affected groups to literally not give a toss about the restrictions anymore. Imagine the scenario where the pubs are full, 25 year olds aren't allowed in, so they go to the parks and the police turns up. It would be quite a show.

1
 wercat 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

chip and pin like a bank card?  5000 lb fine plus confiscation for a month for letting another person know your pin

also a time gap before the card can be re-used for entry

Post edited at 16:44
 neilh 07 Apr 2021
In reply to Alki:

they are going to be offered an alternative to the AZ.  A surprising number have been vaccinated already anyway.  So re Jon you are making mountain out of a molehill. 

In reply to neilh:

Seeing as every vaccine other than AZ is in rather short supply in the UK, I can't see how that would not affect the timing of the rollout. As such, a rollout of any such scheme must either be delayed or use alternative means of ensuring biosafety.

Post edited at 16:59
1
 neilh 07 Apr 2021
In reply to Alkis:

Well as the Modena is being rolled out I think the issue is already addressed. 
 

I know  quiet a few under 30 women who have already had  the Az. It’s a lot  of media hot air. The benefits outweighs the risks. 

 Ramblin dave 07 Apr 2021
In reply to neilh:

Yeah, I did some back of the envelope sums, and even if every blood clot-related death of someone who has had the AZ vaccine was a direct result of the AZ vaccine, it still works out less likely to kill you than a half day skiing or a 50 mile car trip.

In reply to neilh:

> Well as the Modena is being rolled out I think the issue is already addressed. 

> I know  quiet a few under 30 women who have already had  the Az. It’s a lot  of media hot air. The benefits outweighs the risks. 

The blood clot risk for the pill is 1:10000, compared to 1:250000 for the vaccine, the same with dvt risk from flying. And that's ignoring the risk of covid, either death or potentially damaged organs for the rest of a young persons life. 

I sense that most folk have no sense of the risk we live with daily, car travel etc.. 

Post edited at 17:44
 fred99 07 Apr 2021
In reply to wercat:

> chip and pin like a bank card?  5000 lb fine plus confiscation for a month for letting another person know your pin

That's "heavy" man.

 fred99 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

And they haven't got around to telling us whether some (or indeed all) those with these blood clots are in fact both female and on the pill - in which case the vaccine wouldn't necessarily be to blame in the first place.

In reply to fred99:

> And they haven't got around to telling us whether some (or indeed all) those with these blood clots are in fact both female and on the pill - in which case the vaccine wouldn't necessarily be to blame in the first place.

I don't think it's quite the same type of clot, seems they differ, but either way it's still considered extremely rarely. 

Life's full of tough choices, the so called unfairness of only unlocking for those vaccinated, or youngsters needing to way up the risk of different things. These are unusual times in a pandemic, I fail to see why so many expect everything to be fair and equal. There are oldies and vulnerable who until recently have barely even left their house for 12months, the youngsters should by thankful in a relative sense.

1
 Si dH 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

I think we should let the regulator weigh up the risks rather than make up numbers on ukc. We know the risks of dying from covid are extremely low for the under 30s - significantly lower I think than for someone in their 70s who has been vaccinated - but the exact numbers are difficult to come by because of the way the NHS present their stats. The regulators will have them. So if they think people under 30 need to be offered an alternative because the balance of risk is no longer clear, then we should trust them.

Apart from the slightly misleading wording of his first sentence, I agree with everything Alkis said. Although, the government have basically made clear now that any pass system would use vaccinations and testing records together anyway.

Post edited at 18:04
In reply to Si dH:

> Apart from the slightly misleading wording of his first sentence, I agree with everything Alkis said.

Yes, I agree that I did not phrase that correctly. I do not personally feel it is inadequate, it's just if the regulator thinks that that age group should be offered an alternative vaccine then they have drawn that line (perhaps overly cautiously).

PS: I mean, I didn't even check the potential adverse reactions of the whole host of vaccines I took to go to Africa a couple of years ago, considering the protection offered I genuinely didn't (and don't) care.

Post edited at 18:08
 Si dH 07 Apr 2021
In reply to fred99:

> And they haven't got around to telling us whether some (or indeed all) those with these blood clots are in fact both female and on the pill - in which case the vaccine wouldn't necessarily be to blame in the first place.

That information is covered in the latest BBC news report at a high level. 1/3 were men.

In reply to Si dH:

I think it's as much about maintaining vaccine confidence in a population, even if the maths ratios clearly present an extremely low risk. Most folk these days seem incapable of dividing a simple restaurant bill by 4 or 5 without their phone, so comparing ratios is likely beyond them. (They've still probably got an A in gcse maths though).

1
 elsewhere 07 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> So all that's need is some way a person can accurately and securely ID themselves at a venue, the venue's software can verify on the database a person has been vaccinated etc..  

> But your phone, a smart card etc could anybody, passed around among friends. How will a venue know with certainty it's you? 

To prevent the phone being passed around it you might take a selfie in front of the staff  and your phone only generates a consent code if it recognises you. To register a second device for the same individual's vaccination status the selfie hashes could be matched so your friend would need to look like you.

Or you put a photo on a smart card.

It's not perfect but there's no reason to require perfection. It just needs to be good enough to make fakery infrequent enough not to matter much.

In reply to elsewhere:

> Or you put a photo on a smart card.

Welcome to the scannable Scandinavian driving licence. Doubles as travel id, personal id.... with a personal QR code on the back, tied to national database and the usual biometric data on a chip within it. Problem is it would take years to fully implement from scratch.

1
In reply to summo:

> Most folk these days seem incapable of dividing a simple restaurant bill by 4 or 5 without their phone

"...but Tim and Janet had an extra bottle of wine, I didn't have a starter, Nigel had a cheeseboard that was £1.35 more than our ice-creams, you and Tim also put the drinks you got at the bar on the restaurant tab..."

In reply to Ridge:

> > Most folk these days seem incapable of dividing a simple restaurant bill by 4 or 5 without their phone

> "...but Tim and Janet had an extra bottle of wine, I didn't have a starter, Nigel had a cheeseboard that was £1.35 more than our ice-creams, you and Tim also put the drinks you got at the bar on the restaurant tab..."

Still divide, it all averages out over time. Life's too short to be fighting over £2.50!!

 Rob Naylor 08 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> Still divide, it all averages out over time. Life's too short to be fighting over £2.50!!

I agree...but there is a surprising number of people who don't, and who will argue to the last penny for a "fair" splitting of the bill according to who had what. I think it's bonkers, usually, although I have encountered a couple of occasions where an individual has ordered stuff to double or more of the approximate values that everyone else has stuck with.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

> I agree...but there is a surprising number of people who don't, and who will argue to the last penny for a "fair" splitting of the bill according to who had what. I think it's bonkers, usually, although I have encountered a couple of occasions where an individual has ordered stuff to double or more of the approximate values that everyone else has stuck with.

It's fine with close friends where, as summo says, it all evens out.

However for larger parties it's a nightmare. People buying the most expensive things going and insisting on equal splits, people arguing over the last penny and, my pet hate, most people putting in what they owe plus a couple of quid tip but you're still £10 short...

 fred99 08 Apr 2021
In reply to Si dH:

> That information is covered in the latest BBC news report at a high level. 1/3 were men.

Saw that later.

You would think that there wouldn't be any difference in the percentage with clots between men and women though.

Does that mean that (maybe) half of the women with clots have really had them because of "the pill" rather than the Covid vaccine, or does it mean that men and women are "different" as far as the vaccine is concerned - the latter seems unlikely. Of course, it could always be a combination of pill and vaccine that bumps up the ratio of women with clots.

 fred99 08 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

> Still divide, it all averages out over time. Life's too short to be fighting over £2.50!!

Not when there's one person who ALWAYS has the most expensive meal, plus extra "sides", and then pushes for the meal to be equally divided.

I avoid the bastard whenever there's a meal (or drinks abroad) nowadays -

1
In reply to fred99:

We know one person who buys the cheapest when we go Dutch, most expensive when it's group dividing. We just live with it, as they are genuinely nice the rest of the time and usually play a game guessing what they'll order. 

 wercat 08 Apr 2021
In reply to summo:

a loss adjuster?

In reply to Si dH:

There's an infographic halfway down this that while you could probably use to argue any case you wanted, I thought summed it up well.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56665517

 Ramblin dave 08 Apr 2021
In reply to Ridge:

I'm not sure that it always evens out - like, it's not unusual for someone to be on a tight budget and deliberately trying to spend as little as possible, or for someone to be a bit of a bon viveur who's always going to be the one ordering extras. But I do feel - quite irrationally strongly - that the right way to deal with that is a simple "I don't mind putting in a bit extra" rather than all this itemization of the precise costs of what everyone ordered.

Impressive topic-drift, by the way!

Post edited at 13:00
 Si dH 08 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Thanks, yes, I saw that this morning. It's useful.

Post edited at 15:28
 jkarran 08 Apr 2021
In reply to fred99:

> Does that mean that (maybe) half of the women with clots have really had them because of "the pill" rather than the Covid vaccine, or does it mean that men and women are "different" as far as the vaccine is concerned - the latter seems unlikely. Of course, it could always be a combination of pill and vaccine that bumps up the ratio of women with clots.

Or an artefact of the small sample size.

jk

 Si dH 08 Apr 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> There's an infographic halfway down this that while you could probably use to argue any case you wanted, I thought summed it up well.

If interested, this evening I came across the source for the data used in the press conference and by the BBC, which is the Cambridge Winton centre. In this link they show the same risk balance info graphic for different infection rates as at the second peak, as in Feb and as in March, approx, assuming that the given rate is sustained for 16 weeks. It's pretty clear to me the risks are finely balanced for under 30s.

https://wintoncentre.maths.cam.ac.uk/news/communicating-potential-benefits-and-harms-astra-zeneca-covid-19-vaccine/

In reply to Si dH:

Good find, and yes. It's not black and white in the lower risk groups if you ignore long covid and any as yet undiscovered delayed dick-flying-off effects.

In reply to summo:

> The blood clot risk for the pill is 1:10000, compared to 1:250000 for the vaccine,

I think the risk from the vaccine is being talked of with far too much certainty.   The calculations that are being done assume that the UK has found all the cases.  We started with very old people and people sick enough to be in care homes, those groups very commonly have blood clot / stroke problems and we did it in the middle of an epidemic when the health service was seriously overloaded.   Did they really find every vaccine related incident in the millions of older people who were given AZ in among a much larger number of completely normal blood clot related deaths and illness.   

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

One thing is for certain, the odds of seeing the end of the year are better if you've been vaccinated. That's in the eu, out the eu, Scotland, anywhere, the virus doesn't care about where you live, or political views. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Be grateful you aren't in Italy, where for some reason they made the decision to vaccinate many 20-30 year olds, less than 3% of 70-79yr olds have been vaccinated, talk about wasting a vaccine and costing lives. 

In reply to summo:

> One thing is for certain, the odds of seeing the end of the year are better if you've been vaccinated. That's in the eu, out the eu, Scotland, anywhere, the virus doesn't care about where you live, or political views. 

Certainly for people in my age group,  I'm definitely going for my second dose of AZ.    Less certainly if you are a young woman in their twenties or teens offered AZ vaccine. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Certainly for people in my age group,  I'm definitely going for my second dose of AZ.    Less certainly if you are a young woman in their twenties or teens offered AZ vaccine. 

The risk is still low, but isn't it a simple matter of allocating different vaccines to different age groups. 

The pill and flying aren't banned, both increase your risk of clots and neither will save a life, unlike the vaccine. 

In reply to summo:

> Be grateful you aren't in Italy, where for some reason they made the decision to vaccinate many 20-30 year olds, less than 3% of 70-79yr olds have been vaccinated, talk about wasting a vaccine and costing lives. 

It's not wasting a vaccine if they selected groups which come into contact with a lot of people e.g. shop workers, delivery drivers, police, health care staff.  They could be trying to use vaccination to reduce R.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's not wasting a vaccine if they selected groups which come into contact with a lot of people e.g. shop workers, delivery drivers, police, health care staff.  They could be trying to use vaccination to reduce R.

You might want to look at Italy's death rate and age groups. They've protected the least vulnerable and left the oldies to die. 

In reply to summo:

> The pill and flying aren't banned, both increase your risk of clots and neither will save a life, unlike the vaccine. 

If you take the pill you are trading off the risk of clots against your desire to have sex without getting pregnant.  The fact that it won't save your life is irrelevant - it isn't supposed to save your life, it is supposed to stop you getting pregnant.

A vaccine, on the other hand is supposed to save your life.  If you take a vaccine you are trading off the risk of side effects against the risk of whatever it protects you from.   The decision for the vaccine is simpler: if the side effect risk exceeds the disease risk then there is no personal benefit from taking it.

2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  The decision for the vaccine is simpler: if the side effect risk exceeds the disease risk then there is no personal benefit from taking it.

Exactly look at the odds, it's a no brainer. Also you aren't just protecting yourself, being vaccinated protects society, including others who can't have any vaccination. 

Flying and the pill are non essential, folk still accept the clot risk.

Post edited at 11:23
1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...