AIBU to ask if anyone cares? (Passports)

[Revertion]

I'm posting here rather than in the CV board because I don't think this is actually about the virus anymore.

We all saw it coming, some earlier than others, but it's coming on the 1st of October.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-vaccine-passports-required-in-scotland-for-entry-to-large-venues-from-1-october-12403321

https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-mandatory-vaccine-certification/

Honestly I could weep. And I can say that as someone who this plan, in it's current iteration at least, is not going to affect in any way.

But this is setting a precedent. An unprecedented change to our way of life and it has happened without being mentioned on any manifesto, without public consultation, and without clear plans, scopes, limitations and exemptions having been finalised.

It’s saying that in this country, we can limit your daily life based on your perceived health status and we can measure that perceived health status any way we choose to and we don’t need to provide any scientific reasoning, justification, or evidence that there is a need for it or benefits to it.

That is without getting into details about human rights, valid exemptions, and the blinding issue of an end date being based on ministers (not medics or experts) consideration on preventing spread of CV, when the very same plan says, regarding negative testing as an alternative, that it is not considered appropriate because it would undermine one of the main aims which is to encourage vaccination.

So the scope of the plan is not even aligned with the aim.

That is the precedent we are setting here and it is coming from a government who are attempting to make emergency powers permanent (subject to public consultation - for which there is already a CLEAR PRECEDENT of this government entirely disregarding on other issues).

Yes, yes, slippery slopes are a fallacy and all that. But can we call it that when the top of the slope isn't ethically or morally 'correct' and you don't have to make too many logical distinctions or conclusions before you get to the bottom?

AIBU to think this has the potential to be dangerous?

And, specifically if you are in Scotland or follow Scottish politics, AIBU to think the current government really have no line when it comes to their reach into personal lives and freedoms?

(This is coming straight off the back off their attempts to make emergency powers permanent, the 4 year olds can change gender, the thoughts can be a hate crime, etc. Where does it end?).

I'm really having a 'final nail in the coffin' moment this morning. Feel utterly powerless. BUT prepared to be told I'm unreasonable because I'm apparently also a masochist....

This is about protecting the vulnerable and I support it.

I can't get worked up about this. They very clearly state that there will be exemptions for those unable to be vaccinated.

The main driver of it is presumably to encourage people to get vaccinated which in my opinion is a good thing.

It is absolutely despicable and discriminatory. I was all for vaccines, and have both myself, but this is the immoral top of a dangerous slope into a police state.

It will be interesting at what point it’s supporters draw their line in the sand when more and more places are included (and they will be) and more and more medical procedures and information (inevitable).

Other vaccinations, bmi, levels of alcohol consumption, smoking, etc.?

Why do we need so much state control and intervention in our lives?

The vulnerable are protected by their own vaccination status.

Any time a population has to 'present papers' at the behest of a government - it never ends well.
This is shocking and people who support it should looks closely at recent history to see how this could pan out.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, and if it encourages people who wouldn't otherwise get vaccinated, I think it's a positive thing.

People who can get vaccinated but won't are jeopardising the health of those who can't be vaccinated. I think they're selfish fuckers, frankly.

Well as far as it's possible I'd like my life back and the vaccine refusers are part of the reason that's taking so long to happen. People have the right to refuse but they should have the courage of their convictions and make sacrifices as freedom fighters always have.

@MotherAbigail

It is absolutely despicable and discriminatory. I was all for vaccines, and have both myself, but this is the immoral top of a dangerous slope into a police state.

It will be interesting at what point it’s supporters draw their line in the sand when more and more places are included (and they will be) and more and more medical procedures and information (inevitable).

Other vaccinations, bmi, levels of alcohol consumption, smoking, etc.?

Why do we need so much state control and intervention in our lives?

The vulnerable are protected by their own vaccination status.

There are plenty of vulnerable people who can't be vaccinated or for whom vaccination is not effective. Not to mention the people living in parts of the world who haven't been able to get a vaccine yet and are vulnerable to any dangerous variants that arise (much less likely to happen with good vaccine coverage).

Why do you think this would be extended to bmi or similar? What justification is there for that? As an aside people are limited in what they can do with certain blood alcohol levels...drink driving, getting turned away from clubs. It's a normal method of harm reduction.

They very clearly state that there will be exemptions for those unable to be vaccinated.

But, as far as I'm aware (and prepared to be corrected) there is currently no means of getting an exemption and even if there were, they haven't actually defined what a valid reason for exemption would be?

Contraindications?

Phobias?

Mental health issues?

This is 20 days away from being implemented. Have GPs been consulted? Are they all agreed on what a valid medical exemption looks like?

The vulnerable are protected by their own vaccination status.
Except for those who can't be vaccinated because they're too young or too ill and those that have been vaccinated but their immune systems are unable to mount a response.

@Revertion

They very clearly state that there will be exemptions for those unable to be vaccinated.

But, as far as I'm aware (and prepared to be corrected) there is currently no means of getting an exemption and even if there were, they haven't actually defined what a valid reason for exemption would be?

Contraindications?

Phobias?

Mental health issues?

This is 20 days away from being implemented. Have GPs been consulted? Are they all agreed on what a valid medical exemption looks like?

So your problem is less with the vaccine passport itself and more how you think the implementation is going to be shoddy/mismanaged? I can get on board with that. I don't think it's a reason not to do it though, just a reason to scrutinise it.

I don't want this to happen. This is supposed to be a free country with the minimum of state control. Freedom of speech and thought, freedom to move around without surveillance, freedom of artistic expression, freedom to disagree etc. and our rights to privacy of personal and medical information are shrinking ever more rapidly.

I am all for it. I would like to get my life back please. If it’s anyone’s right to not be vaccinated, then it’s my right to not be surrounded by them.

I agree with you op.

Totally agree OP.

I completely agree with everything you've said OP. I disagree with vaccine passports on so many levels. And I speak as someone who is fully vaccinated.

@LakieLady

Doesn't bother me in the slightest, and if it encourages people who wouldn't otherwise get vaccinated, I think it's a positive thing.

People who can get vaccinated but won't are jeopardising the health of those who can't be vaccinated. I think they're selfish fuckers, frankly.

Totally agree, also while I'm at it I welcome the surveillance that is appearing in towns and cities as it protects everyone

The thing I don’t really understand (and I’m potentially being very slow) is why is it necessary? I’m not in Scotland but I understand that in England nearly 90% of adults have had their first jab, which presumably means in a few weeks 90% of adults will be fully vaccinated, and the proportion is even higher among vulnerable groups (sorry I don’t know what the level is in Scotland but I assume it’s similar). That level of take-up seems really high to me, far higher than initially estimated. So does it matter if 1 in 10 people can’t have it or don’t want it?

I care OP, so much. I am actually devastated that people can't see where this is leading.

Not too long ago, on here, most MNetters were very wary about vaccines for children and Covid passports were a silly conspiracy theory that wouldn't happen...well look what happened.

Vaccinations are now on the way for 12-16 year olds and I am happy with that being a choice parents and children can make but what if the next step is vaccine passports for children? To attend large events to start with.. But then restaurants and pubs, soft play, supermarkets. And when the vaccine for 2-11 year olds is rolled out? The choice for parents and their children isn't so black and white then is it?

Where does it end?

@Revertion, as soon as it is made law, then people can get an exemption certificate. I know this because my DD is a manager of residential houses for different categories of people. She has already been in touch with the GPs.
Exemptions will include phobias, MH, consent (under some circumstances) etc as well as physical reasons.

I have mixed feelings. The level of stupidity out there is high. The anti Vax movement is strong, without any science reasoning. The deaths that have happened in the US, of heavily pregnant women and their babies, because they've been sucked in, are tragic. We need carrots and sticks to get through this pandemic.

Totally agree with you, OP.

This is no longer about the virus, and all about control.

My main worry is the lack of research on periods and reproductive health. Women's health is always the bottom of the pile and this has been shown again. So for that reason, I'm not sure.

I think they're selfish fuckers, frankly.

I'm not going to agree or disagree because I think it's honestly more nuanced than that.

But for the sake of argument lets say they are indeed selfish fuckers.

And lets forget it's subjective and say everyone is in agreement on what constitutes selfish fuckery.

Does that not apply to many more behaviours?

We don't limit their daily lives unless they've been proven in a court of law or by panel of experts to have committed a crime (dangerous driving) or to be incapable of doing the part of their daily lives we are limiting (removal of children).

If this is about the jeopardisation of health then why is a negative test not acceptable?

And arguably by creating medical exemptions all you are doing is putting one person's health (the exempt) above the other's (the vaccinated vulnerable).

There would be a lot more logic to argue with if being vaccinated meant there was no way you could carry or spread the virus. This is not true.

As I said in my op, this is (in my knowledge) unprecedented because it is limiting daily life in your own country based on your perceived health status. Not your actual health status (i.e diseased / not diseased) or your ability to infect others.

If we implement this, then the argument of 'we can limit the lives of those with type 2 diabetes, or the morbidly obese, or the alcoholics until they change their behaviours' - which I completely disagree with - begins to have more logical validity.

Previously this could be argued against quite easily with 'none of those can be spread to others' and shut down.

But we are not basing this decision on ability to spread or endanger the lives of others because if we were, the most logical and effective way to do that would be to require a negative test. And the second most logical would be to require an antibody test.

So this is arguably more about punishing those who are making poor health choices and limiting their lives until they comply. They have said in their proposals this is the main aim.

Which is a valid slippery slope because A) we can limit the current targets lives further since the clear aim is to change behaviour and B) we can extend the target to anything and anyone since the clear aim is to change behaviour.

I agree OP. The fact that they want these emergency powers to be permanent ( not necessary! ) and also soon it'll be illegal to demonstrate outside Holyrood.

Nicola Sturgeon's 'shame on you' comment was my nail in coffin moment. >>> follow that discussion on the feminism board

I am completely against it.

Over 90% of the over 16 population in Scotland have had at least one dose of the vaccine. There doesn't seem to be a big part of the population not vaccinating.

But given that the current thinking is vaccinated people can and do still get covid and pass it on it seems pointless. And the fact that boosters are being talked about. And also that vaccine protection wains over time.

I despair of the Scottish government I really do.

@Thunderpunt

Any time a population has to 'present papers' at the behest of a government - it never ends well. This is shocking and people who support it should looks closely at recent history to see how this could pan out.

This.