UKC

Vaccine Passports part II

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Cobra_Head 17 Feb 2021

Just seem on the news some firms are saying no vaccine no work, and FB has erupted! People saying it's all part of getting us to conform and be inducted into mind control etc.

I wasn't certain, but I thought I heard a minister say it would be up to individual companies, I'm surprised this isn't against the law.

I can see both sides of the argument, firms want their staff to be safe, and to be more mercenary, don't want production stopped due to a covid outbreak. Will firms be responsible for people contracting covid while at work.

Then there's civil liberties.

Obviously, foreign travel, is out of our hands, if countries want a covid vaccine passport to enter your choice might be very limited, redress even ore so.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

I have purposely not looked in to if it can be done by law or not because if it can it would be easy to do and though I'm very pro vaccine I'm also pro choice. 

On the question about would firms be held accountable for an outbreak at work, I would have thought so. It would probably take a big outbreak for the HSE to get involved but if they do woe betide anyone who doesn't have robust risk assessments and procedures in place along with proof they are being followed. The first D in RIDDOR stands for disease. 

I'm not taking any chances, I did the best risk assessment I could, put procedures in place, carry out random audits both in our shop and on site to make sure our guys are following the rules. I even put an automated temperature scanner with facial recognition in our entry hall that checks the temp of everyone entering and if faces are programmed in (all our employees are) it stores the date, time and temp. Added bonus is it would work as a clicking in machine as well if I could be arsed using it for that. 

In reply to Cobra_Head:

People aren't going to stop crowing for it until it happens.

No seems to mean ask again later. Yes will mean we've got them and they're staying. So it'll happen, even though it probably shouldn't.

Post edited at 21:17
 girlymonkey 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

For work purposes, I am for it as long as it takes into account whether someone has actually been offered it yet! If someone who can have it has refused it then seems ok to me for a company to say you can't then meet other staff or customers. The company has to do their best to keep everyone safe. Obviously, there are medical exceptions, Dr can certify those. 

Obviously, it would be harsh to say that 20 year old Jimmy can no longer work here because he won't get vaccinated until October! But if 65 year old Freddy has been offered and refused then I think it's fair enough to say either go and get it or get out. 

Businesses have had such a hard year, why should they have to suffer due to individual bad choices? If someone on staff can't be vaccinated, then those choosing not to are making the workplace a dangerous environment for them. They have a right to come to work and be as safe as possible.

 Mr Lopez 17 Feb 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Obviously, it would be harsh to say that 20 year old Jimmy can no longer work here because he won't get vaccinated until October! But if 65 year old Freddy has been offered and refused then I think it's fair enough to say either go and get it or get out. 

Can't refuse work to 65 year old Freddy on the basis it's unsafe for him to be unvaccinated while allowing 20 year old Jimmy to work, while unvaccinated. That'd be penalising the refusal, rather than the fact of being vaccinated or not.

Passports can't work fairly until everyone has been given the chance to get vaccinated (or even then), otherwise it'll be 'harsh' on all 20 year old Jimmys and/or discriminatory to all 65 year old Freddys (who would loose their job not for not being vaccinated, but for having refused a vaccine)

Post edited at 21:37
 girlymonkey 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

Nope, Freddy is making the workplace more dangerous than it needs to be. Jimmy, presumably following the safest Covid protocol he can, is being as safe as it is possible for him to be. 

 Eric9Points 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

They had the boss of Pimlico plumbers on CH4 news tonight. He's going to make vaccination a condition of employment for his plumbers both to protect his workforce and his customers. Apparently he's taken legal advice and he can do it. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55654229

I'd agree that it would be unfair to discriminate against anyone who hasn't had the offer of vaccination but if they have no good reason not to be vaccinated I don't see why they should put people's lives at risk. About 3 million people have caught Covid in the UK and its killed 118000. About 15 million people have been vaccinated in this country and not one person has even been hospitalised. The risk from vaccination is vanishingly small so why tolerate people behaving in a manner that risks the lives of others? 

On another tack some kind of proof of vaccination will allow the economy to open up faster. Once you have had your two shots there is no reason why you shouldn't go back to the climbing wall, the gym, the pub, the cinema or the theatre. These places can open again and people can start getting back to work. Why should everyone sit at home and businesses remain closed until the last person has had their second shot?

In reply to Eric9Points:

Yes, whatever the merits of passports, the Pillock of Pimlico Plumbers interviewed live from..........Dubai.

 Mr Lopez 17 Feb 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

Person A is in the office not having had a vaccine

Person B is in the office not having had a vaccine

If you see any difference between person A and person B then that difference is not based on risk, health, safety or danger

 girlymonkey 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

I see the difference in who could have reduced the risk for those who could not yet be vaccinated. 

An aerosol spread virus with exponential growth is not a time to look at individual rights, it's a time to look at collective responsibility. The person who has refused their vaccine has not taken all reasonable steps to make the workplace as safe as possible for all.

 Eric9Points 17 Feb 2021
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> Yes, whatever the merits of passports, the Pillock of Pimlico Plumbers interviewed live from..........Dubai.

Yes, I noticed.

 r0x0r.wolfo 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Person A is in the office not having had a vaccine

> Person B is in the office not having had a vaccine

> If you see any difference between person A and person B then that difference is not based on risk, health, safety or danger

Because person A is more likely to die from a disease contracted whilst at work.

There are more dangerous jobs than others, but employees of those jobs need to take all of the precautionary measures possible. 

The only difference between the vaccine and masks, screens, hygiene and other workplace Covid measures is that the vaccine requires a 10 minute appointment off site. Whether or not that precautionary measure is possible / available is absolutely relevant. 

That's based on all of health, safety and danger. 

mattmurphy 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

The talk of vaccination as a condition of employment is a knee jerk reaction that will never happen.

The Boss of Pimlico Plumbers is renowned for making outlandish statements, plus aren’t all of his plumbers self employed freelancers (who just happen to drive branded vehicles and wear branded uniforms)? Controversy is great free advertising in this case.

By the end of the year the vast majority of adults in the UK will have been vaccinated and this debate will have been forgotten about.

 Cobra_Head 17 Feb 2021
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> Yes, whatever the merits of passports, the Pillock of Pimlico Plumbers interviewed live from..........Dubai.


Was that him was it? I was flashing between channels and he was talking about having to isolate when he gets back.

Is he made of plastic, he looked like a Thunderbird puppet.

 Cobra_Head 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

I've just seen a minister on TV, who basically washed his hands of it, and said it would be up to individual firms, who might then have to go to court, to get legislation in place, because, rather obviously, most people work contracts don't have a pandemic "clause" in them.

I think it's going to boil down to what other countries do, in relation to travel.

How many people refuse to get vaccinated, when offered. Reading some FB posts there seems to be a lot of people who think it's all made up, just the flu, a trap set by "the system", Bill Gates (is still getting a mention). etc. etc.

It'll also depend on how surely we can say people who have been vaccinated are "safe" from catching it again, or passing it to others.

At present though it seems to be those who don't want the vaccine, who are most against any form of passport. Which is probably understandable, cake and eat it, springs to mind.

I think we might end up with them for UK stuff, almost certainly for travel abroad.

 Ciro 18 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Found this podcast on the history of smallpox vaccination interesting the other day:

https://www.podbean.com/ea/dir-76d9x-5a1ca5c

I'd make it compulsory.

In reply to Cobra_Head:

I was dead against vaccine passports, then I got my shot yesterday and today I noticed myself being more amenable to the idea.
 

Not an opinion on the pros/cons of VPs, I just found it interesting psychologically. Either that or the mind control chemicals are kicking in....

In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

That's how it happens....
Before shot: Those b**tards swanning around with their vaccine passports, lording it over all the rest of us who haven't had it yet
After shot: Why can't I haz pint in pub?

When ii) becomes a big enough number of people it looks unavoidable.
Of course, as noted, with uptake running about 90% it soon becomes moot as everyone gets jabbed, but for a few months in the summer this is going to be a pissing contest of epic proportion.

 TomD89 18 Feb 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

I would argue that making medical procedures mandatory to allow you to be eligible to work is a step too far no matter how altruistic the objective is. Do you not feel it's a bit rich for businesses to remain open and let employees risk catching the virus while there was no vaccine, then fire you if you have reservations or objections to having the vaccine when it's available?

Still far too early for this IMO, if my work said tomorrow vaccine or goodbye I'd have to say goodbye. A data driven, voluntary approach is the better option. Once we're at a place where 50-70% of the population is voluntarily vaccinated, you can let the evidence direct the measures required.

If "as safe as possible for all" is your objective this would seem to potentially lead to all sorts of other demands upon individuals eg. flu jabs, indefinite mask wearing, no mixing with anyone but your family and colleagues etc etc. Do we even know if it's worth vaccinating the healthy under 40's yet without data on longer term efficacy? (eg. if we need to tweak and re-administer the vaccine annually will it be cost/resource/logistically viable to give it to 100% of adults twice every year?).

Scenario, the one in a billion person who has a serious adverse reaction to one of the vaccines. They say they weren't going to have it but their employer forced them to. Company is liable for damages I assume? There will be litigation for unfair dismissal en masse as well. Then all the unemployed people who won't comply no matter what. I personally don't feel an increase in the number of the disagreeable unemployed is beneficial for society.

It's incredibly easy to say mandatory vaccination ASAP is the right thing, but saying this so early with no reservations or caveats makes me suspect you've not really thought very widely about potential consequences to our society beyond "stop bad virus". 

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

The more talk there is of restrictions on the non vaccinated, then there will be less of them in the end. 

If you can't fly, go to large sports events, music festivals etc... that's likely a fair carrot for the conspiracy theorists to question to their logic. I suspect many will get the jab on the quiet whilst still spouting their nonsense.

Post edited at 08:09
 ianstevens 18 Feb 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> I was dead against vaccine passports, then I got my shot yesterday and today I noticed myself being more amenable to the idea.

> Not an opinion on the pros/cons of VPs, I just found it interesting psychologically. Either that or the mind control chemicals are kicking in....

This I think. As someone who is going to have to wait for a vaccine based on age alone, it feels unfair that (potentially) those over 60, who already have so many (perceived or otherwise) life advantages over those in my age group will get another in the form of a summer of freedom. By “perceived advantages” what mean here is affordable house purchases/non-trashed environment/stable careers.
 

Or in clickbait news terms - millennials are annoyed that boomers get yet more stuff they don’t 

 EdS 18 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

It is fairly simple - you make getting vaccine (if you are able) part of the health, safety and well-being policy of the company - just like any other workplace jab ie Hepatitis, TB, polio. 

Ensure all staff have read /are aware of the update. And continue using precautions (as jab isn't 100% and not vaccinated until jab 2)

Don't fire anyone for not having jabs (if offered /medically no reason not to) 

However, if then get Covid and spread it - they are then in breach of company HSW rules. Disciplinary process can then be instigated just like any incident of not using PPE, bio-precaution etc....... 

 Enty 18 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Just seem on the news some firms are saying no vaccine no work, and FB has erupted! People saying it's all part of getting us to conform and be inducted into mind control etc.

>

It's hilarious listening to the anti-vaxers on social media at the moment. If Tim-but-Dim announced that his pubs would open, but only to people who'd had the vaccine, the queue at the vaccine centre would be 10 miles long.

E

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Been thinking about another HR aspect: a workplace were X refused the vaccine but is regularly off work isolating with symptoms with full pay or similar - lots of resentments building up there. 
Perhaps another incentive to vaccinate would be amending sick pay/Covid pay (you get sent home coz you have symptoms but you’ve already used up your Covid sick pay allowance so no cash coming in). Just musing. 

In reply to Enty:

> It's hilarious listening to the anti-vaxers on social media at the moment. If Tim-but-Dim announced that his pubs would open, but only to people who'd had the vaccine, the queue at the vaccine centre would be 10 miles long.

> E

Conversely, the pub next door could open its door to anti Vaxxers only.   Herded all in one spot would make it easier to slip some Pfizer juice into their scrumpy or whatever they drink. So they get back door vaccination but still can’t get on a plane etc.  It’s a win win  

 Stuart William 18 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

Hey now, there’s no need to drag scrumpy through the mud. 

In reply to girlymonkey:

> An aerosol spread virus with exponential growth is not a time to look at individual rights, it's a time to look at collective responsibility. The person who has refused their vaccine has not taken all reasonable steps to make the workplace as safe as possible for all.

I totally agree. Collective responsibility needs to come first over individual rights when it comes to infectious diseases.

Employers have to take reasonable steps to prevent injury or health hazards to their workers. I would not expect my employer to ask me to do various tasks without safety gloves and eye protection. Same goes for covid.

In reply to Eric9Points:

> They had the boss of Pimlico plumbers on CH4 news tonight. He's going to make vaccination a condition of employment for his plumbers both to protect his workforce and his customers. Apparently he's taken legal advice and he can do it. 

If he had bought stocks of vaccine and was offering to provide it to his employees, I think that would be fair enough (I think they are employees, didn't he lose a case on this a while back?)  Of course, the idea of private companies buying up stocks exclusively for the use of their own employees raises a whole lot of other issues. 

Someone from the Greek tourism ministry (I think) was on R4 this morning discussing vaccination certificates.  He shied away from saying they would make them compulsory for travel to Greece this summer, but did say that having to provide multiple negative test results before and after travel would be very inconvenient and might not be required if evidence of vaccination were provided...

In reply to Stuart William:

> Hey now, there’s no need to drag scrumpy through the mud. 

You’re right. I’d offer them a free glass of Pfizz

 timjones 18 Feb 2021
In reply to Stuart William:

> Hey now, there’s no need to drag scrumpy through the mud. 

I agree, it's already been dragged through the mud during the production process ;)

 Cobra_Head 18 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

> Been thinking about another HR aspect: a workplace were X refused the vaccine but is regularly off work isolating with symptoms with full pay or similar - lots of resentments building up there. 

> Perhaps another incentive to vaccinate would be amending sick pay/Covid pay (you get sent home coz you have symptoms but you’ve already used up your Covid sick pay allowance so no cash coming in). Just musing. 


If you have symptoms though, you've already possibly infected you workmates.

It's a minefield though, because say you got 70%-80% of your wages, lots of people could get by with that, while other are already struggling with 100%, so would try and hide any symptoms and go in anyway.

 Cobra_Head 18 Feb 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> Not an opinion on the pros/cons of VPs, I just found it interesting psychologically. Either that or the mind control chemicals are kicking in....

I 'd go for the latter, are you near a 5G mast? 

 Cobra_Head 18 Feb 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> I would argue that making medical procedures mandatory to allow you to be eligible to work is a step too far no matter how altruistic the objective is. Do you not feel it's a bit rich for businesses to remain open and let employees risk catching the virus while there was no vaccine, then fire you if you have reservations or objections to having the vaccine when it's available?

A good point and I think they'd struggle to make people in that instance. What about a place that's been close because of covid being too much of a risk?

> Still far too early for this IMO, if my work said tomorrow vaccine or goodbye I'd have to say goodbye. A data driven, voluntary approach is the better option. Once we're at a place where 50-70% of the population is voluntarily vaccinated, you can let the evidence direct the measures required.

what if we never get there, because people don't want it? It seem to me the younger population is the one fighting against passports and vaccinations the the most.

> If "as safe as possible for all" is your objective this would seem to potentially lead to all sorts of other demands upon individuals eg. flu jabs, indefinite mask wearing, no mixing with anyone but your family and colleagues etc etc. Do we even know if it's worth vaccinating the healthy under 40's yet without data on longer term efficacy? (eg. if we need to tweak and re-administer the vaccine annually will it be cost/resource/logistically viable to give it to 100% of adults twice every year?).

Flu and no masks do kill on the scale of covid though do they? I think you'd have trouble refusing to wear a mask at work if it became part of PPE.

The more covid there is circulating the more chance it has of mutating, so even though symptoms may be minor in younger people, on the whole, this is still a pool of virus within the community changing all the time, simply waiting until one of those changes produces something harder to deal with.

> Scenario, the one in a billion person who has a serious adverse reaction to one of the vaccines. They say they weren't going to have it but their employer forced them to. Company is liable for damages I assume? There will be litigation for unfair dismissal en masse as well. Then all the unemployed people who won't comply no matter what. I personally don't feel an increase in the number of the disagreeable unemployed is beneficial for society.

I don't think "forced" is going to happen, "incentivised" might be a better word, though blackmailed might be another. AFAIK they aren't suggesting forcing, but not vaccine no job, it's a choice not a great one, but still a choice.

 Cobra_Head 18 Feb 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

> By “perceived advantages” what mean here is affordable house purchases/non-trashed environment/stable careers.

none of these were our fault though, well maybe the environment bit, but I've tried to help this part at least.

So isn't that just bad luck, the same as you being younger? Isn't life just unfair sometimes?

Besides if you're young you have longer to enjoy the things we get to do for, one summer, after we've gone.

 Stuart William 18 Feb 2021
In reply to timjones:

I really should have seen that one coming!

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> I 'd go for the latter, are you near a 5G mast? 

I thought that after the vaccine that I *am* the 5G mast?

 DancingOnRock 18 Feb 2021
In reply to mattmurphy:

I agree. It’s a pointless debate. Vaccinations are running at 90%+ apart from in some communities.

Bringing in vaccination passports before everyone has been offered the vaccine is pointless. It creates more division and stops all the young people from going to pubs and festivals. Great, all the over 50s will be out partying. 

Once everyone has been offered it then decide if it’s necessary. My guess is it won’t as the virus will meanwhile infect the youngsters with 50% asymptomatic cases and die out in the older generation due to vaccination levels. 
 

Of course that ignores mutations which is why we probably need to keep controls ‘fairly tight’ and the spread down until then. 

Post edited at 12:14
 TomD89 18 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> A good point and I think they'd struggle to make people in that instance. What about a place that's been close because of covid being too much of a risk?

Such as nightclubs? Rapid testing seems to be the way they are going for that in the short term. 

> what if we never get there, because people don't want it? It seem to me the younger population is the one fighting against passports and vaccinations the the most.

Well if you have less than 50% population uptake you have a genuine political majority not wanting the vaccine so that would require democratic decision making. However polls suggest more like 90% voluntary uptake. In that instance I think the need for all these suggested measures (mandates/passports) quite possibly become moot. Does it not make sense to make these decisions once all voluntarily vaccines are done and the data is in? Certainly if the young are by and large not seriously effected and the old and vulnerable are protected I can see why they'd question the need to have it.

> Flu and no masks do kill on the scale of covid though do they? I think you'd have trouble refusing to wear a mask at work if it became part of PPE.

No they don't, but I specifically rebuked the idea of "as safe as possible". This means no measure is too small. This means we'd have to accurately quantify the risk and weigh in a cost/benefit analysis, not just assume it's the right decision.

> The more covid there is circulating the more chance it has of mutating, so even though symptoms may be minor in younger people, on the whole, this is still a pool of virus within the community changing all the time, simply waiting until one of those changes produces something harder to deal with.

It mutates to serve it's survival and proliferation, this doesn't necessarily mean getting deadlier and could mean the exact opposite, it gets less deadly over time. Our immune responses also adapt so again, lets wait for the data.

> I don't think "forced" is going to happen, "incentivised" might be a better word, though blackmailed might be another. AFAIK they aren't suggesting forcing, but not vaccine no job, it's a choice not a great one, but still a choice.

It's pretty grim to be calling blackmail and coercion "incentivizing" I'm fine with true incentives eg. have £100 to get vaccinated. I'm against coercion disguised as an incentive, as in we'll make you pay more or limit your ability to earn if you don't play ball.

Post edited at 13:17
 DancingOnRock 18 Feb 2021
In reply to TomD89:

>It mutates to serve it's survival and proliferation, this doesn't necessarily mean getting deadlier and could mean the exact opposite, it gets less deadly over time. Our immune responses also adapt so again, lets wait for the data.

 

It mutates randomly and the maths means that eventually one change makes it more transmissible.

From my understand there won’t be a reservoir as the pressure of the vaccine will mean it dies out because it won’t be able to jump from person to person and mutate unrestrained, because unless it has made a mutation it won’t escape the vaccine. 
 

It’s not like it’ll be being transmitted around and not affecting people. The data is still being looked at but it appears vaccinated people are far less transmissible even if they do become sick. 

 Qwerty2019 18 Feb 2021
In reply to EdS:

The company i work for went down a slightly different tack but on the same lines.

All employees had to sign a form acknowledging that company policy is that no one is being forced to have the jab.  However anyone who has the opportunity to have the jab and turns it down will not be eligible for the company sickness policy (Other than any statutory cover) if they subsequently contract covid and require time off sick.

Seemed pretty reasonable to me tbh.

With regards to the Plimco guy, i think some are being a bit harsh on him.  What does his residential location when giving an interview have to do with anything?  My guess is he is able to isolate better than most on here and tbh having read most of the threads on this site, not many of us are able to stand here and judge him.  Also, its his company.  He may see the future market of his company to be improved with a 100% guarentee that his staff are vaccinated.  My guess is that he is stealth advertising tbh.  He has also stated that NO ONE will be forced to have the vaccine.  Anyone who through choice or health reasons doesnt want the vaccine will be offered alternatives within the company but they will not be able to have front line positions.  We may not feel comfortable with it but i can see a future where a covid passport opens doors.

I must admit i would definately feel happier employing someone who does this than someone who doesnt. 

 Qwerty2019 18 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

See my post above, we have already had to sign a document to this effect at my place of work

 jt232 18 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I agree.

To make a vaccine passport worthwhile you need to have some level of restrictions. If a proportion of society is out doing things and a proportion aren't allowed because they haven't been offered a vaccine then the compliance with restrictions will be very low. 

Then, if the situation changes in future and further restrictions are needed they will be ineffective as people won't listen to them anymore. 

 DancingOnRock 18 Feb 2021
In reply to Qwerty2019:

I’ll be very interested if that stands up to law. 
 

What if you refuse to sign? 
 

Currently Covid isn’t a workplace recognised disease anyway and they’re not obliged to pay long term sickness. That’s being argued about at the moment. Your company may have no choice in the matter. 
 

What if you’re sick with Covid but say you’re off with the flu?

How does this affect pension life insurance will they pay out if you die of Covid and have refused the jab? 

Post edited at 14:40
 fred99 18 Feb 2021
In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

> I was dead against vaccine passports, then I got my shot yesterday and today I noticed myself being more amenable to the idea.

I've had my first jab, but even before then I was fully of the opinion that anyone refusing their jab is guilty of making their workplace, and indeed the country, less safe than it could be. The only comparable matter with this is where parents have refused the MMR jab for their children, and then there has been an outbreak, which ends up affecting the innocents.

Obviously it's a long way before the vaccine will have been made available to one and all, but when that point is reached, those who have refused are liable to be a risk to others, a reservoir in which mutant strains can develop, and a potentially unnecessary burden on the NHS - as well as being a reason for other countries to refuse our citizens access abroad.

As such these people cannot be allowed the same freedoms that those who have taken appropriate steps have.  I liken it to the driving licence - a necessary nuisance to go through the system of learning to drive and then prove it by taking a test, but if we allowed people to drive without taking a test the roads (and indeed pavements) would be a death-trap.

 fred99 18 Feb 2021
In reply to ianstevens:

> This I think. As someone who is going to have to wait for a vaccine based on age alone, it feels unfair that (potentially) those over 60, who already have so many (perceived or otherwise) life advantages over those in my age group will get another in the form of a summer of freedom. By “perceived advantages” what mean here is affordable house purchases/non-trashed environment/stable careers.

> Or in clickbait news terms - millennials are annoyed that boomers get yet more stuff they don’t 

I'm sure there are a good few (deceased) boomers who would have been quite happy for the millennials to have "enjoyed" the benefit of the early death, rather than keep such a "benefit" for themselves.

 TomD89 18 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> It mutates randomly and the maths means that eventually one change makes it more transmissible.

Indeed. Host death for an airborne virus is sub-optimal, dead lungs not expelling droplets aren't prime vehicles of transmission.

> From my understand there won’t be a reservoir as the pressure of the vaccine will mean it dies out because it won’t be able to jump from person to person and mutate unrestrained, because unless it has made a mutation it won’t escape the vaccine. 

Seems plausible. Some are suggesting a harsher environment from a virus' perspective means increased selection pressure, so it either gets more spready or it dies out. I'm sure virologists are looking at the most likely 'strategy' the virus will take to maintain itself, becoming more deadly doesn't seem like a good long term strategy.

 jonfun21 18 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Of course, as noted, with uptake running about 90% it soon becomes moot as everyone gets jabbed, but for a few months in the summer this is going to be a pissing contest of epic proportion.


This summer is going to be very interesting in terms of both restrictions vs. direction/guidance.

You can easily forsee a situation where everyone is told to "get back to work in offices, shopping, hospitality etc" despite not everyone having been offered a vaccine.

At this point the most at risk groups will become the lower aged members of society. Currently the risk of hospitalisation/death is lower for these people, though many will have pre-existing health conditions meaning they may well end up in hospital, hopefully mutations won't change this situation.

Ideally we speed up giving the vaccine to every adult so we avoid a two tier system (which will lead to resentment) and/or excessive risk to lower aged members of society by telling them to 'get on with it' whilst unvaccinated. 

 mondite 18 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> What if you’re sick with Covid but say you’re off with the flu?

Or if you have Covid and so drag yourself into the office and infect someone for whom the vaccination wasnt completely effective?

 mondite 18 Feb 2021
In reply to TomD89:

>  I'm sure virologists are looking at the most likely 'strategy' the virus will take to maintain itself, becoming more deadly doesn't seem like a good long term strategy.

It depends on the other factors. It could be a good local optimum.

It needs a high infectious rate and then time to spread. Something highly infectious but kills inside a day is unlikely to do well.

However if it takes two weeks to become lethal and is relatively symptom free for most of those two weeks whilst still being highly infectious then it could be selected for.

 Rich W Parker 18 Feb 2021
In reply to girlymonkey:

I am not anti vaccine. However, have you considered that any mandate from employers risks further isolating disenfranchised parts of the community, making it even harder to eradicate potential hotspots of disease, at a time when trust in the government and it's agencies is at an all time low?

I believe carrot is almost always more effective than stick.

 wercat 18 Feb 2021
In reply to jonfun21:

have you looked at the priority groups for vaccination?

you say that younger people might have a health condition?

Well I'm 64 and currently all of the people in the 16-64 cohort are ahead in the queue, together with the remaining portion of 65-69

I have a friend a month or two older who was lucky enough to be treated as 65 and has had a jab.

However, the 16-64s classed at risk will be before me so I don't see how they will be at risk in the summer.  For the record I have asthma and chest problems following a very bad chest infection for over 3 months last winter as well as being hypothyroid and one or two other conditions I won't mention none of which is serious but I am in far from perfect health.

So I don't think it is as unfair as you say.  the couple of months age difference between me and my friend evaluates to me waiting till end march early April which surprised me somewhat as he had his a few days ago

This is just a situation we have to get through and at the moment I think there is a risk to my group if things are opened up

 jonfun21 18 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

I think we are agreeing - the risk of opening up too much (or in a forced way) before everyone (regardless of age/priority group) has had a chance to get a vaccine is too high in my view ref ensuring compliance/equity of sacrifice and ref potential fast spread of a mutation that vaccines don’t work against. 

As per my post we really need to try and dial up the speed of vaccination.

On a separate thread I noted we now need to be planning a process where we can vaccinate c.50m people within a month for the future. acknowledging the development of vaccine and approval takes longer but once done you need to be able to run fast. as it’s highly likely we may need to repeat the current process for a mutation or other type of Coronavirus. Whilst this will be costly to set up/administer it’s probably a drop in the ocean vs economic damage from extending another lockdown. 

 Cobra_Head 18 Feb 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Such as nightclubs? Rapid testing seems to be the way they are going for that in the short term. 

Seems a reasonable choice if the tests were more accurate, aren't the lateral flow ones still quiet poor 30%? failure rate, which is OK if the numbers are very low.

> However polls suggest more like 90% voluntary uptake.

Remember though we're currently vaccinating people who are :

  • used to getting vaccinations
  • More likely to suffer from being infected

> No they don't, but I specifically rebuked the idea of "as safe as possible". This means no measure is too small. This means we'd have to accurately quantify the risk and weigh in a cost/benefit analysis, not just assume it's the right decision.

What if we don't have the data, shouldn't we be erring on the side of safety?

> It mutates to serve it's survival and proliferation, this doesn't necessarily mean getting deadlier and could mean the exact opposite, it gets less deadly over time. Our immune responses also adapt so again, lets wait for the data.

This isn't correct, it mutates all the time, what happens is, we find out about the mutations which affect the population more, the mutations that die out simply die out, we don't know anything about them because they're gone.

> It's pretty grim to be calling blackmail and coercion "incentivizing" I'm fine with true incentives eg. have £100 to get vaccinated. I'm against coercion disguised as an incentive, as in we'll make you pay more or limit your ability to earn if you don't play ball.

I didn't call blackmail incentivising, the quotes were to emphasise the "vaccine or job" incentive. Paying people to have the vaccine seems a bit weird, haven't we spent enough to make the vaccine available to people?

 Cobra_Head 18 Feb 2021
In reply to TomD89:

>  I'm sure virologists are looking at the most likely 'strategy' the virus will take to maintain itself, becoming more deadly doesn't seem like a good long term strategy.

It seemed to work alright for smallpox to be more deadly, even when not more deadly it was extremely  disfiguring.

Then there's Spanish flu, which while not very good for the virus, was pretty devastating for the humans involved.

I remember when we were being told Coronaviruses were usually very stable and didn't mutate much!

Post edited at 23:08
 Cobra_Head 18 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

This is interesting, regarding mutations, and the science behind them.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/chronic-infection-uk-coronavirus-variant?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

 GerM 19 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

If the demographics of reported reluctances in some ethnic groups to take the vaccine persist then this could quickly become a minefield and lead to all sorts of divisions across different sections of society. Not difficult to envision a situation where to refuse to offer work based on vaccination status could lead to accusations of racial discrimination.

Post edited at 00:25
 Roadrunner6 19 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I agree. It’s a pointless debate. Vaccinations are running at 90%+ apart from in some communities.

Do you think that will hold up into the younger age groups?

The elderly have had a pretty good flu vaccine uptake.

Isn't antivaxx more of a modern thing? So the younger populations, who see themselves as less at risk, may be the population more likely to resist the vaccine?

I can't see us making the vaccine compulsory for a good 12-18 months outside of high risk careers like medicine and prisons etc. 

 TomD89 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> > No they don't, but I specifically rebuked the idea of "as safe as possible". This means no measure is too small. This means we'd have to accurately quantify the risk and weigh in a cost/benefit analysis, not just assume it's the right decision.

> What if we don't have the data, shouldn't we be erring on the side of safety?

Taking away peoples free choice is accepted in extreme circumstances, I'm not convinced you can justify it in order to err on the side of perceived safety. If after lockdown ends, vulnerable are vaccinated and we're still seeing high figures then the discussion can be had. For me there needs to be rock solid evidence for such a move.

> I didn't call blackmail incentivising, the quotes were to emphasise the "vaccine or job" incentive. Paying people to have the vaccine seems a bit weird, haven't we spent enough to make the vaccine available to people?

Come on, you know the difference between incentive and coercion. Incentive is "we'll give you a bonus for vaccinating", coercion is "you'll lose your job if you don't get the vaccine". On that note I overheard a radio news broadcast yeseterday saying they were considering whether vaccine requirement 'for new hires' was legal. This immediately suggests sacking someone whose already employed is going to be a legal nightmare.

 TomD89 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> It seemed to work alright for smallpox to be more deadly, even when not more deadly it was extremely  disfiguring.

Smallpox is extinct bar a few laboratory samples, so from a survival perspective it didn't work alright. Ebola as well is horrible and deadly, but didn't really achieve must spread. The reason covid managed to get to us was it's mildness, it took us months to realise it was even circulating.

> Then there's Spanish flu, which while not very good for the virus, was pretty devastating for the humans involved.

Spanish flu killed 25x more people than Covid and only latest 2 years, another example of being deadly as a failed long term trait.

> I remember when we were being told Coronaviruses were usually very stable and didn't mutate much!

Well so far they've mutated to be very slightly more infectious, we think. Again the media is screaming bloody murder about mutations day in day out, but you read on and most mutations or, merging of strains, don't confer any survival advantage. Mutations of the virus can be in our favor, so simply saying it's mutating isn't automatically a bad thing.

Post edited at 08:01
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> I can't see us making the vaccine compulsory for a good 12-18 months outside of high risk careers like medicine and prisons etc. 

I think that since the South African strain emerged governments are starting to see it as a real possibility that the time some (or all) of the vaccines are effective is less than the time it takes to give two doses to the whole population.  In a world with emerging strains we can't talk about 'the vaccine', we need to be specific about which vaccine.

It's interesting to see what Nicola Sturgeon was saying about suppression today, and there's been similar words from UK government.  They get their advice from the same people but up to now Sturgeon has been trying harder to follow it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/18/coronavirus-vaccine-programme-working-scotland-nicola-sturgeon-says

A not-unlikely situation 6 months or a year from now is that Covid is suppressed in the UK, but the vaccines most people have been given are not effective against the most prevalent strains circulating elsewhere in the world so our main protection is from border controls. 

 Cobra_Head 19 Feb 2021
In reply to TomD89:

> Smallpox is extinct bar a few laboratory samples, so from a survival perspective it didn't work alright.

Do you not think this had something to do with a world wide vaccination program?

> Spanish flu killed 25x more people than Covid and only latest 2 years, another example of being deadly as a failed long term trait.

How long do you consider reasonable to be long lasting AND deadly? I'd say two years is plenty long enough.

You might go so far as to say everything dies out or becomes extinct, eventually. Given the short "lifepan" of most viruses proportionally they seem to hang around for a very long time.

> Well so far they've mutated to be very slightly more infectious, we think. Again the media is screaming bloody murder about mutations day in day out, but you read on and most mutations or, merging of strains, don't confer any survival advantage. Mutations of the virus can be in our favor, so simply saying it's mutating isn't automatically a bad thing.

I don't think you get it, they haven't mutated to be very slightly more contagious (though I also question the very slightly bit), they are mutating ALL the time, we only recognise the ones which affect us more, there are thousands of evolutionary dead ends we never find out about. So obviously a less contagious strain is possible, and hoped for but every mutation carries a risk the vaccine we have might become useless. No one was saying mutating is a bad thing, what was said was the number of mutations is a bad thing, there are more chances of a "bad" strain appearing the more mutations there are. Which is why it's a good idea to prevent transmission in the first place.

 mrphilipoldham 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Eric9Points:

Their twitter poll on the matter didn't go in their favour.. 80-odd% voted no they wouldn't want their plumber to be vaccinated. So they deleted it.

 Eric9Points 19 Feb 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Their twitter poll on the matter didn't go in their favour.. 80-odd% voted no they wouldn't want their plumber to be vaccinated. So they deleted it.

That's Twitter for you.

One anti vaxxer sees the poll, retweets it to his anti vax bubble...

 DancingOnRock 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Roadrunner6:

I don’t think so in the U.K. 

There’s a certain amount of hesitancy but not a lot of outright refusal. 
 

In the U.K. we are quite good at putting social pressure on people to do the right thing. 

 DancingOnRock 19 Feb 2021
In reply to GerM:

That’s a good point. 
 

Last night on BBC London a doctor from the BAME community was saying that the news of a lower uptake amongst BAME in London was unfounded as they aren’t collating race statistics when they vaccinate. And BAME were not responsible for only 80% uptake in London. 
 

She then went on to assert at least 70% of BAME were receiving the vaccine. 
 

I’m not sure what was more worrying, her apparent lack of joining those two statements together, the inability to see why 70% and 90% might account for 80% in a city that has a high BAME population, or both statements given she was a GP. 
 

Unless I misheard and misunderstood her. I’m willing to accept that there may be problems with the sheer high numbers of people to vaccinate. However, the London Borough of Enfield has already moved to doing some over 65s.

 elsewhere 19 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> She then went on to assert at least 70% of BAME were receiving the vaccine. 

> I’m not sure what was more worrying, her apparent lack of joining those two statements together, the inability to see why 70% and 90% might account for 80% in a city that has a high BAME population, or both statements given she was a GP. 

> Unless I misheard and misunderstood her.

I think you have and the GP is more correct than you are.

Wiki says London is 60% white. If 30% of the remaining 40% is unvaccinated that's 12% of Londoners are unvaccinated BAME individuals. Hence at 70% vaccination the 40% BAME population cannot be responsible for overall vaccine uptake lower than 88%. 

 Roadrunner6 19 Feb 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

"A not-unlikely situation 6 months or a year from now is that Covid is suppressed in the UK, but the vaccines most people have been given are not effective against the most prevalent strains "

I don't think that is likely. It is possible. But so far after 12 months the mutations have been limited and the vaccines are still effective at preventing serious covid from what we know so far.

What I don't understand is why there is still so much travel. If you have pretty unrestrained travel in the UK (seems likely) and travel still allowed from certain countries (Ireland at the moment as I understand) it's hard not to see new variants still getting there.

I saw a report of a guy who flew in from a 'red' country who was told to quarantine, but they realized he had landed in Ireland first, thus removing the quarantine requirement on a technicality.

 DancingOnRock 19 Feb 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

If 60% are white and 40% BAME. 
 

And 90% of white are vaccinated and 70% of BAME are vaccinated. 
 

Then 54% of the population are vaccinated because they’re from the white cohort 

and 28% of the population are vaccinated because they’re from BAME. 
 

54+28 = 82.

 Cobra_Head 19 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> There’s a certain amount of hesitancy but not a lot of outright refusal. 

not yet, there isn't, but look who's been getting the vaccine, and you should read my local "community" FB page. I'd say there's going to be plenty who'll outright refuse.

> In the U.K. we are quite good at putting social pressure on people to do the right thing. 

Let's hope so.

 mrphilipoldham 19 Feb 2021
In reply to Eric9Points:

Have you been on Twitter? There’s a very strong pro-vax crowd too. Your argument holds no water.

 fred99 19 Feb 2021
In reply to GerM:

> If the demographics of reported reluctances in some ethnic groups to take the vaccine persist then this could quickly become a minefield and lead to all sorts of divisions across different sections of society. Not difficult to envision a situation where to refuse to offer work based on vaccination status could lead to accusations of racial discrimination.

If, for example, people with red hair* refused to have the vaccine, then the rest of the population - those with black hair, brown hair, blondes and baldies - would feel threatened by those with red hair. Not only that, but they would have a LEGITIMATE reason to feel threatened by what the red haired may well be carrying.

Any subsequent unwillingness to work with, enjoy sport with, and otherwise mix with persons with red hair would not be racism, it would be self-preservation.

If any grouping does take the view that the vaccine is not for them, for whatever reason, they THEY are responsible for any backlash, NOT the rest of society.

* - red hair being chosen as it is less prevalent, at least south of the border.

Incidentally, some Mosques have opened up their doors to be vaccine centres, in order to underline the safety and "halal" properties of the vaccine. We need more of this, along with the public and very advertised debunking of any anti-vaxers.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Last night on BBC London a doctor from the BAME community was saying that the news of a lower uptake amongst BAME in London was unfounded as they aren’t collating race statistics when they vaccinate. 

Well in Bury on Thursday they were collecting race statistics - the usual how would you describe yourself (white British, etc...)

In reply to Cobra_Head:

Israel has launched a vaccine passport - after 2nd jab - gives access to things like gyms, pools, restaurants, etc. Seems like it's being used as a vehicle to help safer opening up of society rather than as a work-place stick which is the direction this thread seems to have mainly gone in.

No idea whether it is, or will be, or will be disallowed from being applied in work situations.

 marsbar 20 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

They are in the Midlands. 

 Cobra_Head 20 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Israel has launched a vaccine passport - after 2nd jab - gives access to things like gyms, pools, restaurants, etc. Seems like it's being used as a vehicle to help safer opening up of society rather than as a work-place stick which is the direction this thread seems to have mainly gone in.

> No idea whether it is, or will be, or will be disallowed from being applied in work situations.


I'm not convinced we need them, yet, but the driver might on the first hand be foreign travel, then if pubs and gym start asking for them, I think it might snowball from there.

Obviously, it will depend on a massive number of variables, whether the vaccine works for a reasonable length of time, if we can stop new variations of the virus bypassing the vaccines we do have, the law and if people / companies CAN demand vaccines before services / work, the number of people who hold out against having the vaccine.

I saw a pub in Israel was offering a free drink to people who would get vaccinated.

 marsbar 20 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I've spoken to someone who had the jab in London, and can confirm that they are asking about ethnicity.  

I'd be astonished if they weren't, particularly given that there are theories that BME are more at risk.  

 DancingOnRock 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Hood:

They may well be collecting them now. 

The full data isn’t being released by NHS England. 
 

A study done by Oxford University and LSTM on 40% of GPs records found as I said above. But that’s a study, it’s not the full  data set. 
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56096265

 DancingOnRock 21 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

What we are saying is if only 80% of the community get vaccinated then there would be a high number in that community being refused access to services. They’re already not happy taking the vaccine as it is as they mistrust the people telling them to get vaccinated. Telling them it’s their fault they can’t get in because they didn’t get vaccinated doesn’t exactly improve the situation. Especially as, in the past, they’ve felt they’ve been deliberately excluded because they’re members of that particular community. Catch 22. 
 

I remember in the 80s there were pubs where you weren’t welcome if you were a climber. 

 Cobra_Head 21 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

>  Especially as, in the past, they’ve felt they’ve been deliberately excluded because they’re members of that particular community. Catch 22. 

are anti-vaxxers a community?

In reply to fred99:

> Any subsequent unwillingness to work with, enjoy sport with, and otherwise mix with persons with red hair would not be racism, it would be self-preservation.

I really do hope we manage to avoid any particular group having a significantly lower vaccine take up rate then others. You're right in that it wouldn't be racist to shun said group but I bet that it'll be called out as racism.

> If any grouping does take the view that the vaccine is not for them, for whatever reason, they THEY are responsible for any backlash, NOT the rest of society.

Almost every news outlet has published multiple articles about the higher risk to BAME groups and some, the guardian, have made many articles based on the unjustness of it all. I am perplexed by the higher than average scepticism about having a vaccine amongst BAME communities, it's literary going to save your life. If anything you'd expect there to be close to 100% uptake of the vaccine. Once everyone in the UK has been offered a jab or two they'll still be a sob story of someone who refused the jab then died from covid - I predict a lack of public sympathy.

Those who don't take the vaccine (from any background) need to prepare for missing out on foreign travel and potentially restrictions closer to home. I suspect refusing to have the vaccine will become increasingly less socially acceptable.

 Roadrunner6 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

In the US the medical community have a very poor record with the black community in particular.

How they treat pain differs, how they treat them in the emergency room differs.this I'd still happening.

A black female Dr died of covid early on and she documented her poor treatment in the ER.

Then there's historic abuse like the tuskagee syphilis study, the lack of acknowledgement of the cell lines taken from Henrietta Lacks etc.

There's just historic mistrust of the medical community.

 fred99 21 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> They are in the Midlands. 

I wasn't asked about my ethnicity (or indeed anything bar my name, address and d.o.b.) in Worcester - and my skin is darker than most "white" persons.

 fred99 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

> I really do hope we manage to avoid any particular group having a significantly lower vaccine take up rate then others. You're right in that it wouldn't be racist to shun said group but I bet that it'll be called out as racism.

Well if any group tries the "racist" card it will be more indicative of their view that they are somehow superior to the rest of us (i.e. THEY are the racists) than the other way around.

 fred99 21 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

We now have people marching under the banner that "it's my body and I'll choose what to put in it".

I wonder what their reaction would be to owners of shops, bars, restaurants etc. saying "it's my property, and I'll choose who I let into it" ??

 DancingOnRock 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

We aren’t taking about anti-vaxers. We are talking about a sub section of a specific community who have a historic, and possibly well founded, mistrust of successive governments of the U.K. 

 marsbar 21 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

I don't think they ask based on skin colour!  

In reply to fred99:

> I wonder what their reaction would be to owners of shops, bars, restaurants etc. saying "it's my property, and I'll choose who I let into it" ??

Businesses already tried that with gay people and they ended up in court.

Refusing service based on forcing people to disclose medical records is a slippery slope: what if they started to refuse to serve people with HIV?

 Cobra_Head 21 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> We aren’t taking about anti-vaxers. We are talking about a sub section of a specific community who have a historic, and possibly well founded, mistrust of successive governments of the U.K. 


Not looking at our local community FB page we're not, it's almost entirely white under 40's, mainly women (though there a sizeable cohort of younger men too), who are vociferously against being vaccinated.

 Cobra_Head 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

> Those who don't take the vaccine (from any background) need to prepare for missing out on foreign travel and potentially restrictions closer to home. I suspect refusing to have the vaccine will become increasingly less socially acceptable.

I think this will be the leader for "encouragement", then hopefully social acceptability will convince others.

 DancingOnRock 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

They’re not who we were discussing. They haven’t been offered the vaccine yet and whatever they postulate about on Facebook could well just be hot air from keyboard warriors.

 muppetfilter 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

You have to wonder how many of these Vaccine refuseniks had jabs for their "Gap Yah" travels round asia ? 

The worry will be how easy the vaccine passport is to counterfeit as has already been done for pre travel covid tests.

 fred99 21 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> I don't think they ask based on skin colour!  

Isn't skin colour one of the major indicators of differing ethnicities ?

 fred99 21 Feb 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Businesses already tried that with gay people and they ended up in court.

> Refusing service based on forcing people to disclose medical records is a slippery slope: what if they started to refuse to serve people with HIV?

Sexual preference is one of the "differences" for which discrimination is prohibited in law, and HIV is NOT something that can be caught just by being near someone - you have to get a lot more intimate than that, so stop trying to use it as a comparison.

Not having had a vaccine is not such a case, and if the government "wasted" time doing so then they would be giving a rather unwelcome green light to anyone refusing the vaccine - not something I believe any of us want to happen.

Owners of premises are perfectly entitled to refuse entry to anyone they like, so long as that reason is not based on gender, race, religion, sexual persuasion and so forth as per current laws.

 fred99 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Not looking at our local community FB page we're not, it's almost entirely white under 40's, mainly women (though there a sizeable cohort of younger men too), who are vociferously against being vaccinated.

In other words the section of society least likely to suffer the worst effects (although not completely immune to them).

However they are just as capable as any other (non-vaccinated*) adult to infect others.

The term "selfish bastards" comes to mind, and I for one would be perfectly happy to publicly call these people out for what they are, and to support any business that doesn't want to RISK having them on their premises.

* - Current reported data appearing to indicate that those vaccinated have a greatly reduced likelihood of passing on the virus.

 marsbar 21 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

They either ask everyone or no one.  You can't go asking questions only of people with darker skin, that would be discrimination.  

 Cobra_Head 21 Feb 2021
In reply to muppetfilter:

> You have to wonder how many of these Vaccine refuseniks had jabs for their "Gap Yah" travels round asia ? 

They're oblivious to smallpox comparisons, obviously there's a massive spread from the "untested rapidly deployed vaccine" - which I imagine will probably come around before passports are necessary, to the "Bill Gates started all this to control us all", with the "It's just the flu" brigade somewhere in between.

The thing is, I thought it would be a few......what's the word? ....nutters But is seems to be quite a number of individuals. It's a bit scary to read some of their arguments and reasons. I think the blindness to how busy hospitals are and how many people are ill, and have died, that's the most dis-concerting.

> The worry will be how easy the vaccine passport is to counterfeit as has already been done for pre travel covid tests.

yes, I'm not convinced we'll get there, but if we do it's going to be a nightmare. It appears Israel is pretty much on the verge of allowing businesses to refuse people.

 Cobra_Head 21 Feb 2021
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> They’re not who we were discussing. They haven’t been offered the vaccine yet and whatever they postulate about on Facebook could well just be hot air from keyboard warriors.


I thought we were discussing Vaccine Passports and people's reluctance to them and the likelihood of them being required.

People saying they're not going to have the vaccine no matter what, sounds pretty much relevant to me. Who knows what they'll do, in the end. I like the way you easily dismiss the option they might resist.

Unfortunately, the recent trend in anti-vaxing for established diseases we've been dealing with for years, does fill me with optimism.

Post edited at 17:29
 muppetfilter 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Ive had a few jobs over the last few years in Nigeria , Gabon and Cameroon and there is a pretty straightforward requirement to present your vaccine certificate to get through customs.

A guy I work with summed it up perfectly when he described his anti-vax inlaws.

"yeah, they won't trust things made in proper labs but will sling anything down their necks with Mitsubishis or doves printed on them"  It turns out small Bolivian Jungle shack pharma thats transported in a Colon is fine but regulated and controlled big Pharma is not.

 marsbar 21 Feb 2021
In reply to TomD89:

It's a vaccination not an operation.  You are being a bit dramatic. 

 DancingOnRock 21 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

>I like the way you easily dismiss the option they might resist.

 

Because Facebook and Twitter are full of these people. With Facebook just report them. Facebook have been actively disabling accounts of people spreading misinformation. They start with one or two days and move up to permanently deleting accounts and banning people for life. 
 

Many of them are just incredibly bored and isolated and the only way they get listened to is joining echo chambers. Once they get back to work and realise everyone in the real worlds thinks they’re nutters I’m sure they’ll rethink their position. 

 DancingOnRock 21 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

>Current reported data appearing to indicate that those vaccinated have a greatly reduced likelihood of passing on the virus.

 

The evidence from Israel was supporting this. 
 

It’s one more nail in the “What’s the point of having a vaccine if you can still spread it?” reason not to have it.

And means at least we now don’t have to keep explaining the difference between ‘do’, ‘can’ and ‘could’ to these people. 

 Cobra_Head 22 Feb 2021
In reply to muppetfilter:

> Ive had a few jobs over the last few years in Nigeria , Gabon and Cameroon and there is a pretty straightforward requirement to present your vaccine certificate to get through customs.

> A guy I work with summed it up perfectly when he described his anti-vax inlaws.

the best I've come up with is, they're happy to have something circulating in their bodies which can out of a bat from the jungles of China, but not something that was studied and made by scientists and came out of a lab.

 marsbar 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Presumably something that came from a bat is 100% natural and organic 😂

 Cobra_Head 22 Feb 2021
In reply to marsbar:

> Presumably something that came from a bat is 100% natural and organic 😂


Funnily enough, there didn't seem to be any answers forthcoming.


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