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.

@Crocidura

What sort of control would it give and how would that be exercised and used for?

Apologies if you genuinely can't think of any answers to such a question, but frankly I find this level of apparent naiveté disingenuous.

That's what really worries me about it to be honest - the idea of our health data being stored centrally (probably managed by a private company) and that data allowing or preventing us from taking part in society

Check out what happened with Palantir (Peter Thiels Big Data company in case you are wondering). Hancock was trying ot give them a long term contract to handle NHS health data but has been stopped by the courts and now can only limit their contract to the crisis at hand.

@dividedwefall Thank you for pointing me to that, I had no idea.

I just found this recent BBC article on the subject which uses the usual manipulative language, saying that "the NHS clarified it would follow the proper process in future" - treating the NHS as separate to the government and taking the blame off the Tories and Matt Hancock. I doubt most NHS workers want UK health data in the hands of a US corporation.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56590249

It definitely seems like these things are connected - the contradictory messaging over the passport, then the rush to trial it, Hancock's history of pursuing contracts with these giant corporations. I despair.

So, not about public health, but about money.

I don't get it - the vaccine passports will reduce the number of people who can go to pubs, so they will make less money once passports have been introduced?

Apologies if you genuinely can't think of any answers to such a question, but frankly I find this level of apparent naiveté disingenuous.

I must be thinking of a different system to what's being proposed. I am imagining carrying a card saying I have been vaccinated / tested negative or whatever. A bit like I carry a driving licence that says I have passed my driving test. I don't know what people mean when they say the government will be using this to control us. Control in the sense of not allowing large numbers of unvaccinated people to gather indoors, or something more sinister?

Croc if you really think that is all the government would use this for you are extremely naive. The possibilities for a full set of tracking data linked to our health records are endless. Tech companies will pay and members of our government will have ways of some of that money coming back to them.
Tracking citizens also opens up possibilities for a social credit system. Also a lot of this tech is glitchy. Why on earth would anyone think that errors wouldn't be made that would make life difficult even for those who wished to acquiese tp it. And finally it should not be for those who object to list objections. The onus should be on those who propose this complete change to the relationship between government and citizen to properly justify it. But they don't.

It won't be a card, croc. The government are looking at using apps and facial recognition technology. I really do think you should read up on data analytics and algorithms to really see what might be possible here.
Alongside that there is the real concern that as a nation we have always rejected id cards. This would be a way of slipping one through the backdoor with no debate.

The possibilities for a full set of tracking data linked to our health records are endless.

I can't see how vaccine passports make this inevitable or even more likely. The govt already knows I've been vaccinated because they vaccinated me. They already have access to my health records and much more besides. They know where I live, where I work, how much money I make, who I'm related to, my criminal history, DBS status, citizenship status. If they want to do this, they can do it already.

Alongside that there is the real concern that as a nation we have always rejected id cards. This would be a way of slipping one through the backdoor with no debate.

Again, I don't believe that we have anything to worry about re ID cards with this govt in charge. That was a Labour anti terrorism policy, straight after 9/11.

I am not sure they can though Croc. Not in the way they could if you handed all this linked data on a plate with all of your daily movements in a neat package.

I am sure if you were suspected of a crime the government could comb through various databases (many of which probably don't talk to each other) but otherwise they are not interested in you as an individual. What is interesting is a dataset of millions of citizens.

A bit like I carry a driving licence that says I have passed my driving test.

Even if we put the technology thing aside for a minute... it's nothing like carrying a driver's licence.

It's effectively creating a leper island inside the country.

It's like forcing people to carry around HIV status cards... except the card isn't even factually accurate because not everyone who has a HIV-free card is HIV free, and not everyone who has a HIV positive card is actually HIV positive.

So in other words... completely fucking intrusive and illogical as well. But it somehow helps lots of people feel safe, and most people don't have HIV, so who cares, right?

@Crocidura

The possibilities for a full set of tracking data linked to our health records are endless.

I can't see how vaccine passports make this inevitable or even more likely. The govt already knows I've been vaccinated because they vaccinated me. They already have access to my health records and much more besides. They know where I live, where I work, how much money I make, who I'm related to, my criminal history, DBS status, citizenship status. If they want to do this, they can do it already.

See my post on the previous page about the NHS deal with Palantir. Different organisations have your data currently. That's true. It is siloed and currently can't be combined and consolidated under the privacy and data protection laws that we have enjoyed until now.

Covid 'emergency' laws are being used to get rid of or sideline those protections. Companies like Palantir are 'data consolidators', matching disparate data until they know more about you than you do.

If you want to be shocked look at the emergency measures Digital NHS are taking under the guise of the CoVID emergency.

It's different from HIV though, because it's to do with immunity status rather than stigmatising someone with a particular disease. HIV is not transmissible in the same way and we are not in an HIV pandemic that has forced us into economically catastrophic lockdowns in order to keep the NHS functioning.

@Crocidura

So, not about public health, but about money.

I don't get it - the vaccine passports will reduce the number of people who can go to pubs, so they will make less money once passports have been introduced?

I think there’s concern about who will be making money producing these passports.

@Crocidura

It's different from HIV though, because it's to do with immunity status rather than stigmatising someone with a particular disease. HIV is not transmissible in the same way and we are not in an HIV pandemic that has forced us into economically catastrophic lockdowns in order to keep the NHS functioning.

Very naive. The whole narrative has been about stigmatising those hesitant to take the vaccine.

I think Priti Patel would be very enthusiastic about the introduction of ID cards.

I think there’s concern about who will be making money producing these passports.

Oh I see, another excuse to shove a few million towards a Tory donor. I get it now thank you.

Very naive. The whole narrative has been about stigmatising those hesitant to take the vaccine.

I don't think it's about stigmatising people. Everyone is suffering because of the lockdowns. Everyone is desperate for the lockdowns to end. Vaccination is potentially the way out, but only if enough people are vaccinated. I want people to be encouraged and incentivised to have it. I want as many people as possible to have it so that we can protect those unable to be vaccinated without having to go into lockdown again, and reduce the chances of a vaccine-resistant variant which could put us back to square one. Every person vaccinated gets us one step closer to normal life. I can also see the economic sense in allowing those who can mix safely to do so while the vaccination process is continuing.

Vaccine passports are a way of forcing people to consent to medical interventions in exchange for freedom, ultimately a carrot and stick scenario. The vaccine is therefore not voluntary, citizens will be excluded from normal society for their personal choices, essentially the same as the Social Credit system in China where people are scored due to how good or bad a citizen they are. The problem with this is eventually the stick gets bigger and the carrot gets removed.
My DP has been advised not to get the vaccine yet by his doctor due to his current medications -
Will there be an exemption on the passport for people who are unable to have it?

@moochingtothepub

The thing is, vaccines are 100% so even if you have had it, there's a small change of catching it. To minimise this chance I won't be socialising with non vaccinated people, easy as I don't have any anti vaxxers in my family or friends. If I go to the pub, a meal, a gig I don't think it is unreasonable for all those medically able to to have had the vaccine before going to indoor public places.

gonna be a problem doing the supermarket shop that ! . or make that any kind of shopping at all lol . still jeff bezos will love you for using amazons services forever

If they announce vaccine passports then I am declining the vaccine on principle.

@winched

A bit like I carry a driving licence that says I have passed my driving test.

Even if we put the technology thing aside for a minute... it's nothing like carrying a driver's licence.

It's effectively creating a leper island inside the country.

It's like forcing people to carry around HIV status cards... except the card isn't even factually accurate because not everyone who has a HIV-free card is HIV free, and not everyone who has a HIV positive card is actually HIV positive.

So in other words... completely fucking intrusive and illogical as well. But it somehow helps lots of people feel safe, and most people don't have HIV, so who cares, right?

Also, you’re not routinely asked by people to see that card in order to go about your daily business.

You’re not even required to have that card on your person, when driving. You must have one yes, but there’s no requirement to carry it or someone checking it if you want a pint of milk.

And before someone replies “but you do need a driving licence to drive”. reread what I’ve written.

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!

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.

Unless there are children there.

And what difference would it make if the majority are unlikely to make them ill? It only takes one person who didn’t develop immunity after the vaccine to put them at risk. It’s up to the immunocompromised person to decide whether they’re willing to take that risk - like they have to go in lots of situations every year. There is no guarantee that they won’t come across a non-immune person.

Also, what about people who are immune after infection? They’re not a risk to others but you’re excluding then because they haven’t been vaccinated.

I have had the vaccine (first dose), but absolutely loath the idea of vaccine passports for domestic use, ie to visit the pub, cinema, etc.
It is the first step for an ID health card.
I understand they may be used for going abroad, and certain countries already require vaccines of various kinds. And we cannot control what other countries do.
However, unless we restrict pubs, etc to only British residents, then as the economy opens and tourists arrive, how will they visit?
Or will it be one large global database?
For the moment, I can live without going to the pub, if ID required.