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....

@forinborin

I don’t believe any country in the world tests for HIV at point of entry. Given that the vast majority of PLHIV in the U.K. are on effective meds and no risk to anyone it’s not really relevant to the thread. Not at the point of entry. Poland will not allow HIV positive visits over 90 days. Hungary will deport HIV positive people who are not complying with their treatment.

In fairness, (and being more than happy to be living in a "police state" ) I don't think we should be holding either Poland or Hungary up as shining examples in how citizens are treated.

@Geamhradh whereas the UK is a shining beacon of hope and enlightenment for the rest of Europe 😂😂😂😂😂. It's a shithole run by corrupt incompetent liars.

[quote PeriWrinkles]@Geamhradh whereas the UK is a shining beacon of hope and enlightenment for the rest of Europe 😂😂😂😂😂. It's a shithole run by corrupt incompetent liars.[/quote]
True dat.

Get jabbed guys and for fuck's sake don't vote for the blond twat again.

Do people still not get this? Vaccinated people are far less likely to become ill, this who do are far less likely to be hospitalised. When they are, they are far less likely to need an ICU bed, and will stay for a day or two rather than a week or two. That’s the point of the passports.

Just like seatbelts are there to prevent serious or fatal injuries in a crash, not to stop the car crashing in the first place. Do people really not understand this, or is it something they keep telling themselves to justify their decision not to vaccinate?

I totally understand the benefit of the vaccines. I love vaccines. I just don’t understand the point of the passports, when overall take-up of the vaccines among the eligible population and, in particular, among the vulnerable groups has been so high.

If only, say, 50% of adults had accepted it then I would understand it a lot more. But we don’t appear to have a major problem with vaccine hesistancy in the U.K., given nearly 90% of adults have accepted at least their first dose (and I think another poster upthread said it’s slightly more than 90% in Scotland). Are we saying we need 100% of adults to be vaccinated?

YANBU
Night clubs have been open for ages. Now all of a sudden, they have to turn people away if they are not jabbed and have the app. The passports are a way to coerce people into getting the vaccine. If it was about health or protecting the vulnerable (who I doubt are lining up to go to clubs anyway) then they would be insisting on tests for everyone.

Have seen it mentioned so... comparing vaccine passports to yellow fever certificates does not work. You only have to prove your yellow fever vaccine status on entry to the country requiring them. You don't have to show it again to access anything else.

Do people still not get this? Vaccinated people are far less likely to become ill, this who do are far less likely to be hospitalised. When they are, they are far less likely to need an ICU bed, and will stay for a day or two rather than a week or two. That’s the point of the passports.

You're not considering that perhaps people still aren't getting this because it's the exact opposite logic to how we've dealt with other restrictions during the pandemic.

A couple living separately alone, mid twenties, no health or weight issues, always worked from home, not allowed to see each other.

Couple are far less likely to become ill, if they do they are far less likely to be hospitalised, if they are then far less likely to need ICU and will stay for a day or two etc.

We haven't given a rat's arse about likelihoods throughout.

If we did, we wouldn't have been in a situation where bingo halls were open to pensioners long before children were allowed to set foot in schools.

But apparently it's all about the likelihoods now and anyone who hasn't noticed is a dummy. But we're only allowed to use one thing to calculate said risk?

100% vaccination rate for 60+
Admissions this week 76 per 100k

35% vaccination rate for u30s
Admissions this week 14.9 per 100k

Why are we only allowed to use vaccination status to calculate illness > hospitalisations > ICU when the above shows age is far more significant?

Because it's about stopping the spread?

If it was about stopping the spread they could use testing. (They've admitted it's not about stopping the spread though).

If it was about keeping hospitalisations down, the stats above categorically show that restrictions based on actual passports would be far more effective than restrictions based on vaccine passports.

But that would be making sweeping judgements and restricting people's lives based on the perceived risk of a demographic, which sounds massively unjustifiable imo........

Poland will not allow HIV positive visits over 90 days.
Do they require HIV-free status for citizens to go to a restaurant?

Hungary will deport HIV positive people who are not complying with their treatment.
Does that include their own citizens, where do they deport them to?

Yup many African countries often require yellow-fever vaccines of visitors -- but they haven't demanded their own citizens must have yellow fever vaccines. Why are people confusing visitor requirements = citizen requirements?

That's what's unprecedented in Italy, USA, Scotland. Vaccine requirements for citizens to keep ordinary life activities, not just access a few public services. You can 100% WFH in USA but still have a covid vaccine requirement (now). American employers are saying it's a giant administrative headache for them to enforce this policy.

And if we have covid jab requirements now, why not flu jab requirements next year?

American school districts is a better comparison. Many 'require' specific vaccinations for public school enrolment. However, many school districts do not enforce this policy at all or not strictly; alternatively, parents have option of private schools or home-ed. One reason my cousin home-eds his kids is because he didn't want to vaccinate them.

Nobody in the family cares about the little unvaccinated (for mumps etc) kids, but the family elders are dismayed & wailing because another adult cousin refused covid jab.

Not RTFT

Surely most who can't be vaccinated wouldn't be keen on going to an event where there were loads of people breathing over them anyway?

Flu etc are still a risk.

YANBU

@Revertion

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 absolutely agree with every word of this. If this were about protecting peoples health a negative test would suffice, as would the results of an antibody test. It absolutely blows my mind that previous infection and therefore natural immunity is completely brushed over like it doesn’t even exist. It is absolutely about punishing people to change their behaviour, since when has coercion been acceptable? Because it’s being done in bite sized pieces people are swallowing more and more unfortunately

Op I'm with you. It's up there with the 'named person' scheme.

ScoGov seem obsessed with controlling people's lives. Reducing the drink drive limit, which has saved no life's, minimum pricing alcohol, now wanting to tax high fat restaurant food.

It's a slippery slope all of it. Women are bottom of the pile. And covid vaccine has proven to cause heart issues in boys so why push it.

I hope this is what opens people's eyes to SNP.

@XenoBitch

Night clubs have been open for ages. Now all of a sudden, they have to turn people away if they are not jabbed and have the app. The passports are a way to coerce people into getting the vaccine. If it was about health or protecting the vulnerable (who I doubt are lining up to go to clubs anyway) then they would be insisting on tests for everyone.

Who do you think 'vulnerable' people are? They consist of many age groups - not just elderly people. And yes, they might like going to clubs just like other people

Also, 'coerce' means 'by force'. No-one is forcing anyone to get the jab simply because vaccine passports exist. Life could be easier, yes, but no-one is lining you up and holding you in your seat while they stab you in the arm, are they? That's coercion.

We are growing increasingly concerned by the shenanigans of the Scottish government. Currently keeping an eye on property south of the border. Will definitely leave if independence is voted through.

Also, 'coerce' means 'by force'. No-one is forcing anyone to get the jab simply because vaccine passports exist. Life could be easier, yes, but no-one is lining you up and holding you in your seat while they stab you in the arm, are they? That's coercion

It means by force or threat

This is the threat

@louleey
That's how the vaccine passports (EU passes) work.
Either:
*Vaccinated
*Negative Test Result
*Had Covid.

It's not vaccine or nothing.

@Lockdownbear

Op I'm with you. It's up there with the 'named person' scheme.

ScoGov seem obsessed with controlling people's lives. Reducing the drink drive limit, which has saved no life's, minimum pricing alcohol, now wanting to tax high fat restaurant food.

It's a slippery slope all of it. Women are bottom of the pile. And covid vaccine has proven to cause heart issues in boys so why push it.

I hope this is what opens people's eyes to SNP.

Do you have a link to the "proven" Myocarditis? Neil Ferguson's latest article (last Monday) confirms the opposite is still true (more risk of myocarditis for boys from Covid than from the vaccine) but if a paper has been published since Monday I'd be interested in reading it. Thanks!

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

Hope that link works, it might only be a suggests rather than poven sorry. But it certainly raises questions of risk, esp since the vaccines aren't giving life long cover the way we hoped.

@Lockdownbear

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-risk-from-pfizer-jab-side-effect-than-covid-suggests-study

Hope that link works, it might only be a suggests rather than poven sorry. But it certainly raises questions of risk, esp since the vaccines aren't giving life long cover the way we hoped.

Thank you!

@tigger1001

“Vaccinated people can still get and pass on covid. Scientists are saying that delta in particular is more likely to spread through vaccinated people. And that people with the delta variant carry as much virus in their nose as an unvaccinated person”

That is not what that source says.

Yes, vaccinated people can spread the virus.

No, delta is NOT ‘more likely to spread through vaccinated people’. It is more likely to spread than other variants, even in vaccinated people. The way you wrote it makes it sound like it’s more likely to spread in vax people than unvaccinated people. NOT TRUE.

Yes, it’s been found that the viral load from delta is as high in the noses of vax and unvax people, HOWEVER with previous variants, it was found that the viral load in vax people reduced more quickly than in unvax people, which reduced overall transmission by vax people. They are doing the work to show if this is the case with delta (highly likely given the way immunity works).

@RufustheBadgeringReindeer

Also, 'coerce' means 'by force'. No-one is forcing anyone to get the jab simply because vaccine passports exist. Life could be easier, yes, but no-one is lining you up and holding you in your seat while they stab you in the arm, are they? That's coercion

It means by force or threat

This is the threat

What is the threat? And I already said 'coerce' meant 'by force'.

"What is the threat? And I already said 'coerce' meant 'by force'."

The pp was just pointed out that coerce means force or threat. Not just force.

Force isn't always physical stick a needle in your arm. Force can also be making life difficult if you don't do what's requested.

The threat is a restriction on where you can go.

You can disagree with people's views on vaccine passports, but to suggest there isn't an element of coercion is just nuts.

That's the so called whole point of them. To "encourage" people to take the vaccine and to do so they threaten to implement restrictions on individuals who don't.

@Yarnandneedles

We are growing increasingly concerned by the shenanigans of the Scottish government. Currently keeping an eye on property south of the border. Will definitely leave if independence is voted through.

We will be too. They aren't doing a stunning job at the moment despite what the brainwashed snp supporters tell people. I'm paying extra council tax after they said it wouldn't go up, my income tax is higher in scotland than it would be in England, and now I'm gonna be paying more national insurance tax too (not snps fault, but if they wanted to try and beat boris, they'd lower our taxes). Despite paying extra, I get nothing better in my area, schools are atrocious, roads are terrible, nhs is horrible and all they do is keep building more houses to cram people in, with no extra facilities. No extra schools, shops, GPs, no bigger hospital etc. Our public transport is non existent most days.

If nicola gets control of everything, scotland is fucked.

I cannot understand how anyone thinks this is a good idea tbh. Apart from those who will directly benefit financially, of course. It is such an infringement on human rights.

I mean the jcvi don’t recommend the vaccination of children but it’s happening anyway.
What is this really about?

@MistressoftheDarkSide

Why the assumption that unvaccinated people are more likely to spread it though, especially when it's clear the vaccinated are also catching it from the vaccinated? You have to have the virus to pass it on. Having a passport means very little. Tests are a better measure of transmission.

As I understand it, research has demonstrated that vaccinated people who catch covid are measurably less likely to spread it than the unvaccinated.