Vaccine passports and mask exemptions

[salmonskinjerky]

The language around the vaccine passport debate has been really shocking - dehumanising, completely unnuanced and very dangerous indeed. It seems like the majority of posters on MN would support vaccine passports for everyday activities and the posters who admit to not being keen on getting the vaccine are called selfish, a danger to others and told that they ought to live as hermits.

I remember when there were a lot of threads about mask exemptions and the overall consensus was that people who felt unable to wear masks for various reasons should be allowed to go about their business without challenge, despite the fact that they posed an additional risk to the health of the people around them. This is in spite of the fact that an unmasked person posed more of a risk to others in the time before anyone had the protection of a vaccine than an unvaccinated person would pose to a person who had been vaccinated. The view that many held was that a mask exempt person should not be questioned about their reasons for not wearing a mask. And that it would be discriminatory to not allow them into indoor public spaces.

I would like to hear from people who make a distinction between people who are mask exempt and people who are unvaccinated for various reasons and why the two should be treated differently.

“State of fear: how ministers ‘used covert tactics’ to keep scared public at home
Government’s ‘psychological strategies’ to manipulate unwitting public’s behaviour may backfire and lead to long-term damage, experts claim”

Behind a paywall but here’s the link:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/02/state-fear-ministers-used-covert-tactics-keep-scared-public/

And the public have been successfully terrorised enough to believe they will die unless every one of their fellow citizens are vaccinated.

Excluding those who are advised not to have the vaccine for medical reasons (who I think should have an exemption passport) then I dont think it's wrong to have a vaccine passport. The choice is for the individual-have the vaccine and be able to access these social events/these places or dont, and accept your life is restricted. You have a free choice, but you have to weight up the costs and benefits of that. The pub, concerts, restaurants etc are not rights. There are responsibilities involved in full participation in society.
I would however object to the introduction of passports before all over 18s have been offered the vaccine. I would also object to restriction of the NHS to the unvaccinated/exempt.

@BellsaRinging So unvaccinated under 18s aren’t a risk to society? The virus distinguishes between people who can’t be vaccinated and those who decide not to be?

@BellsaRinging no, that’s exactly what they should so. Say that the unvaccinated wouldn’t be treated for anything on the NHS.

The passport thing would then quickly by dropped and it all forgotten.

And the public have been successfully terrorised enough to believe they will die-- are more likely to go back into lockdown unless every one-- as many as possible of their fellow citizens are vaccinated.

Fixed it for you.

Crocidura

The Telegraph’s words not mine.

@Temp023

If everyone who can have the vaccine has the vaccine and can prove they have had the vaccine, then those who genuinely can’t have the vaccine, ( for reasons other than blinded self-interest and ignorance) will be able to have an exemption certificate and it will be safe for them to join us in public spaces because the over whelming majority of people will not be a risk to them.

What all these people agonising over their personal decision to have the vaccine don’t seem to realise is, it’s not really about them, it’s about their community, economy and future!
If you can have the vaccine and are not having it, then you are just prolonging this situation for everyone. Read the bloody science PROPERLY.. and then have the bloody vaccine!

Thank goodness for some good well balanced common sense in the midst of what appears to be ridiculous hysteria.
It’s a case of asking if you want to do everything possible to enable us to get our lives back to normal or do you want to prolong the agony. Science was the only way out and the hard work to enable us to do that is being discredited by those who fight against progress and above all have little understanding of what they are talking about.

Sorry I realised you amended my words. But so stand by them.

The public won’t go into lockdown again.

And most of those pushing the idea of forced/coerced vaccination are the ones that want to stay in tax payer funded lockdown because they are scared.

[quote bumbleymummy]@BellsaRinging So unvaccinated under 18s aren’t a risk to society? The virus distinguishes between people who can’t be vaccinated and those who decide not to be?[/quote]
This. Or that under 18's will no longer be allowed in shops/cinema/concerts etc.

I strongly object to vaccine passports for domestic use. I don't want to give medical information to a shop worker to be allowed into a shop. I don't want to be forced to give medical information to my employer to be allowed to work, in an environment where it's not necessary.

Given how well the vaccination programme is going I don't see why it's necessary in the first place. And could seriously impact the rest of the vaccination programme. Knew the government would find away to undo the great effort of the nhs in rolling out the vaccine.

How much money will it cost to roll out the scheme, and which of the governments friends will benefit from it? The test and trace roll out worked so well....

@bumbleymummy the vaccine isn't developed/approved for the under 18s yet, and there would be issues there around parental consent etc. But I think the point I would make is that this is about the social contract and all those who can participate doing so for the good of the whole via hard immunity. If they wont, then they dont get to experience the benefits of all of society. That way also there are very few in social areas who are unvaccinated (the exempt) and they benefit from herd immunity, whereas if refusers were included herd immunity might not be achieved.
The way I see it it this the refusers going out compromise the safety of others (particularly the exempt) and particularly compromise the ability of the exempt to participate safely in society. So the unvaccinated by choice adversely affect the personal rights and freedom of the exempt. This is particularly so because the exempt will likely be higher/high risk so will be more inclined to restrict their activities if likely to come into contact with the unvaccinated. The same is likely not true of the unvaccinated, who will probably measure the risk to themselves (note, not othes) and mix.
@Jo99996 I think that's a slippery slope tbh. Healthcare is such a basic right. And if you start here you end up with no treatment for childhood mumps and measles; not treating addicts or the obese or those involved in dangerous sports etc.

@reformedcharacters

Crocidura

The Telegraph’s words not mine.

Thanks for the link. The mental health repercussions on society from this exercise is going to be long lasting and painful. I had to advise a family member to stop watching CNN as the live covid death counter was causing her anxiety.

@tigger1001 I think we should treat the under 18s like the exempt.

[quote BellsaRinging]@bumbleymummy the vaccine isn't developed/approved for the under 18s yet, and there would be issues there around parental consent etc. But I think the point I would make is that this is about the social contract and all those who can participate doing so for the good of the whole via hard immunity. If they wont, then they dont get to experience the benefits of all of society. That way also there are very few in social areas who are unvaccinated (the exempt) and they benefit from herd immunity, whereas if refusers were included herd immunity might not be achieved.
The way I see it it this the refusers going out compromise the safety of others (particularly the exempt) and particularly compromise the ability of the exempt to participate safely in society. So the unvaccinated by choice adversely affect the personal rights and freedom of the exempt. This is particularly so because the exempt will likely be higher/high risk so will be more inclined to restrict their activities if likely to come into contact with the unvaccinated. The same is likely not true of the unvaccinated, who will probably measure the risk to themselves (note, not othes) and mix.
@Jo99996 I think that's a slippery slope tbh. Healthcare is such a basic right. And if you start here you end up with no treatment for childhood mumps and measles; not treating addicts or the obese or those involved in dangerous sports etc.[/quote]
this is about the social contract and all those who can participate doing so for the good of the whole via hard immunity.

Ok, firstly, people who contract the virus and recover also contribute to herd immunity.

The ‘unvaccinated by choice’ are no more of a risk to those who can’t be vaccinated than unvaccinated children, other adults who can’t be vaccinated, and people who aren’t immune despite vaccination. The person who can’t be vaccinated has to decide whether they are willing to take the risk of coming into contact with any of those people. There is no way of guaranteeing that they will not come into contact with any of them.

The issue of stigmatising the unvaccinated is absolutely true though, and the govt benefits from that manipulation of the public's perception.

People were getting more and more fed up and angry with lockdowns and other restrictions, but when the mob comes for the govt, they just put up their hands and point at the unvaccinated. "They're the reason you can't live normally! If they would just do what they're told, everyone would be free and life would be perfect!" Cue the mob going obediently after the unvaccinated.

And let's face it, it's so much easier to attack Joe Bloggs than your govt, not to mention very enjoyable when getting to do it with a sense of self-righteousness.

[quote BellsaRinging]@tigger1001 I think we should treat the under 18s like the exempt.[/quote]
I would agree, but suspect many will not, given that the under 18's are often been accused of being the vectors of transmissions - ie why schools shouldn't open yet.

@bumbleymummy I get that, I think, but if everyone who can get vaccinated is then the risk is significantly reduced, probably to an acceptable level? If I was assessing risk to myself and was unvaccinated (which in fact is my current situation) and knew I was coming into contact only with the vaccinated and exempt in say a pub then that would be a very different risk assessment to going to a pub where I had to assume there was also a significant percentage of unvaccinated in addition. Currently I am choosing not to do that as I havent been offered the vaccine yet (OK, not pubs, but eg shops and so on). I would make a different choice probably if everyone/the majority were vaccinated.

@BellsaRinging I guess it depends on how worried you are about contracting it yourself. I would have no problem going into a pub and wouldn’t even consider the vaccine status of the people around me.

bumbleymummy

I wouldn’t consider myself in the lowest risk category but I am an adult capable of protecting myself and do not want my right to make that choice removed.

There’s a growing number of people who will refuse the vaccine in protest, that’s what will cause the most damage.

Hello everyone.

We’re getting a number of reports about anti-vax sentiment and misinformation. Mumsnet, being an open site, does mean that this kind of thing tends to be robustly challenged on the boards, and many users are here looking for reassurance after all.

We're always on alert to anyone here with a specific agenda to share a particular (often extreme) point of view. We'll usually ban such posters as their contributions to threads are rarely helpful. We also delete links to sites that are clearly peddling bad science/fake news.

We think, especially with the emergence of new vaccines, it’s understandable people will want to discuss what’s involved - but we’d always urge anyone with questions to speak to a medical professional too. You can also find further information about vaccines on the NHS website. www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/why-vaccination-is-safe-and-important/

My 16 yr old dd has had her first dose as her doctor said it was safe for 16+ years. I can’t see her being happy to have jabs every 6months or to be able to do things her friends can’t.

I don’t understand why people consider concerns about vaccine passports as anti-vax, it’s about the right of bodily being preserved.

Yes, they’re very different but some MNers seem to conflate the two and try to shut down any discussion by labelling anyone against compulsory/coerced vaccination ‘anti-vaxx’.

My post should have read ‘bodily autonomy’ of course.

Yes I wish people would separate the two. Even MPs in Parliament have stated that those asking questions are not anti-vax and it’s wrong to label them as such.

@reformedcharacters

I don’t understand why people consider concerns about vaccine passports as anti-vax, it’s about the right of bodily being preserved.

I agree.

I am very pro vaccine, but very anti vaccine passport.