I understand why people are against vaccine passports but...

[User135644]

I understand why people are against vaccine passports, but a lot of those most vocal against it are the usual crowd who have been anti-lockdown and anti-mask throughout (and often anti-vaccine). They won't accept vaccine passports but will be the first to complain if and when nightclubs are forced to close again due to the impact of the virus which without vaccines would already be a lot worse with the Delta variant.

They can't always have it both ways.

Unfortunately the conspiracy theorists are being proved right

We're like the proverbial frog in a pot being boiled to death. The water is getting warmer and still we don't notice.

I've had both jabs, have complied with the rules around mingling and mask wearing. But I am absolutely opposed to the demand for vaccine passports.

My stepmother is absolutely terrified of the vaccine after following a particular channel on YouTube. Forcing her to take the vaccine would not only undermine her rights to her own body, but reinforce her mindset that there is a shadowy conspiracy afoot.

People are entitled to bodily autonomy. I respect the right of those who don't want the vaccine to not have it, even though I don't understand their reasons.

I campaigned against ID cards years ago and am yet to be convinced that an ID-card-by-another-name is a good idea. I am concerned about the authoritarian bent of this government and am reluctant to cede even more control over our daily lives.

I'm another pro-masks, pro-vaccine, pro-public health measures but absolutely anti-vaccine passports. They won't solve the issue and Johnson is just hoping those people too stupid to get their heads round facts will blame 'clubbers' for the rising deaths towards Christmas.

Tens of thousands more deaths before the end of 2021 potentially. This won't be solved by vaccine passports.

Thanks @IRanSoFarAway1 - do you have a link regarding the difference with digital ID? If not will have a Google but I guess I thought it was not much different to showing your ID card physically - which in France for example I did every so often for random police spot checks. Only not being French, I didn't have an ID card so had to carry my passport around. I didn't just need to her ID for my own convenience if you see what I mean.

The ID card question depends on its form and how it is used. I routinely carry my passport with me because I have one and I don't drive so as a basic form of ID required in bureaucratic situations that's fine. A basic ID card with basic information in written form - fine.

However, anything involving biometrics and electronic storage of information is too open to abuse and manipulation. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear is the usual trope used to undermine people with fears of technological malfeasance, however, it's the devil's own job to get "computer says no" issues resolved at the most mundane level. A good example of the mundane is the post master scandal. Definitely not mundane to the victims, and while it didn't start out as a malicious event, it became one as it was covered up and went on for years and the authorities turned a blind eye.

Our lives are ruled by technology enough as it is, and many companies are salivating at the thought of a social credit system.

With regard to the vaccine passport idea - if nightclubs and other group venues have police this, will it become tied to public liability insurance? If a case is discovered and it is thought a venue has allowed an unvaccinated person through the door even if, for arguments sake, they produced a fake passport, could they be held liable? This strengthens the argument for something digital and interactive over a paper version. And would also force people to get smartphones if they don't already have one.

There are many layers and strands to this whole subject, the first being coercion at all levels. Freedom of choice will effectively become an illusion.

You may use the argument that people can't be allowed to commit murder or other heinous crimes, the vast majority do not, and there are laws in place to deal with the minority that do. This is very different imho.

The language that people use in the debate is very telling. "You must be mad not to get the vaccine" "You are selfish not to get the vaccine" "If you don't get the vaccine you bear responsibility for deaths and lockdowns" - all levelled at the individual, despite the fact that this could have been avoided by better handling right back at the beginning. Our governments, worldwide pretty much made the mess and now it's up to us to clean up after them by having a vaccine and being willing to curtail our lives ongoing, despite genuine concerns over the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Whichever way you look at it, this has now become a very complicated fraught experiment, and all everyone can do is cross their fingers and hope for the best.

What specifically do you mean by a social credit system @MistressoftheDarkSide? How do you see that playing out in the UK?

I’m sensing deja vu MistressoftheDarkSide

Perhaps the aim of getting everyone in a froth about vaccination passports to enter nightclubs is a distraction. Vaccination was meant to reduce personal risk to the vulnerable and elderly. The vulnerable and elderly are unlikely to be having it large and for this cohort vaccine passports would not be an issue. More a matter of proof.

The young are by definition not elderly and unlikely to be vulnerable. So, using reason, they would be extremely unlikely to choose to have a vaccine that does not benefit them - ie reduce serious illness and death. And considering that vaccination does not prevent infection or onward transmission or contribute to 'herd immunity' (meaningless without a sterilising vaccine and a virus that mutates) have rationally chosen not to be vaccinated. So 'libertarian conservatives' now want meaningless vaccination prior to entry to nightclubs. How is this libertarian?

This would make sense if the young and healthy had become more at risk of severe illness and death. But it is unfortunately more likely to be political. Atm the UK is No 1 on the world chart of new daily infections. So it is world beating but not in a way that comes with boasting rights. The vaccination roll out was good PR. So it has been expanded from the elderly to all adults and now they want to vaccinate children - pets will probably be next.

This is not persuasion to benefit public health - this is coercion to benefit public relations.

If you are outraged by this tyrannical infringement of basic freedoms then join us in central London on Saturday for a peaceful protest... if you're not outraged then you're part of the problem!! 💪🏻

@userperuser

I think I know what you're getting at

Social credit in the UK - start with incentives and then ease in the sanctions for undesirable behaviour?

If one starts with the moral standpoint that the unvaccinated, regardless of the exemplary life they may have lead previously, are worthy of being shunned, and excluded, where else might that lead?

[quote MistressoftheDarkSide]@userperuser

I think I know what you're getting at

Social credit in the UK - start with incentives and then ease in the sanctions for undesirable behaviour?

If one starts with the moral standpoint that the unvaccinated, regardless of the exemplary life they may have lead previously, are worthy of being shunned, and excluded, where else might that lead?[/quote]
I mean you can claim deja vu and that it has been fully explained why and how the tories would implement a social credit system here a la China, but it really doesn't make sense in terms of what they want to gain from being in government.

Why can't the simplest explanation probably be the correct one? We are in a pandemic which has caused huge damage to lives and the economy. Vaccine or immunity passports are one way of controlling transmission, and doesn't necessarily have to be a means to an ends for biometric ID using your DNA in a social credit system.

You're right. It doesn't have to be. But it might be. And discussing that possibility should be on the table. The influence of big tech corporations and their relationship with governments should be scrutinised. Like the Pegasus Project debacle going on at the moment. Opportunities for maximum profit can trump the greater good and be presented as such at the same time.

Lots of the conspiracy theories are coming true it seems.

I’m anti vaccine passports too although pro vaccine. I agree with the others that said this is to incentivise the 18-24’s. They looked at what happened in France and hope the same will happen here ( which I think it will)

@IRanSoFarAway1

Leafy "Why can't the simplest explanation probably be the correct one? We are in a pandemic which has caused huge damage to lives and the economy. Vaccine or immunity passports are one way of controlling transmission, "

But they're not. Infection control has been very low on the government list. Humanity has been low on the list. You don't treat sick people by saying "don't call for help unless your lips are blue".

But they're not they're not what?

Domestic immunity passports are a way of minimising transmission, which is why many countries have chosen to use the in some form.

I'm not disagreeing the government have royally fucked up their handling of pandemic, but that doesn't automatically mean immunity passports are ineffective just because they're suggesting them and have made numerous mistakes in the past.

@IRanSoFarAway1

leafy vaccine passports aren't a way of controlling infection. Sorry, must stop multi tasking!

@IRanSoFarAway1 it's also very very hot

Why don't you think they're a way of reducing transmission? Double vaccinated people are less likely to both be infected by and transmit coronavirus, which will therefore reduce transmission in crowded spaces. (Personally I think a negative test should be an alternative to anyone who hasn't been vaccinated).

If they don't "control infection", why do the government want to use them? And why have other countries chosen to implement them in some form?

What happens when they decide to make them mandatory for pubs/restaurants then shops, then supermarkets, then to leave the house, you will wish you spoke up at the beginning.

And if you think I'm being far fetched, in past 18 months we have made it illegal to sit on a park bench, leave your house without good reason, and in some areas of UK only be allowed to be a certain distance from your home.

Double vaccinated people are less likely to both be infected by and transmit coronavirus, which will therefore reduce transmission in crowded spaces

They will only reduce and not stop infection therefore the proposal is to exclude a section of society from participating in a yet unconfirmed number of activities is ludicrous. What you will have is a group of vaccinated people spreading infection amongst themselves, only time will tell if there is significant reduction and unless the same level of testing is maintained it won’t give a true picture.

Look at BJ, previous infection, double jabbed and now in isolation so where does it end?

Also, if boosters are required, as it’s not possible to vaccinate an entire population all at once you will still permanently have millions exposed and/or excluded for periods of time.

@userperuser

Double vaccinated people are less likely to both be infected by and transmit coronavirus, which will therefore reduce transmission in crowded spaces

They will only reduce and not stop infection therefore the proposal is to exclude a section of society from participating in a yet unconfirmed number of activities is ludicrous. What you will have is a group of vaccinated people spreading infection amongst themselves, only time will tell if there is significant reduction and unless the same level of testing is maintained it won’t give a true picture.

Look at BJ, previous infection, double jabbed and now in isolation so where does it end?

Also, if boosters are required, as it’s not possible to vaccinate an entire population all at once you will still permanently have millions exposed and/or excluded for periods of time.

I was answering a poster who said "vaccine passports aren't a way of controlling infection"

The ideal binary scenario of a vaccine stopping infections and transmissions by 100% doesn't exist. When you've got such large numbers involved and are dealing with exponential spread, reducing the risk of transmission by a certain percentage will translate to reduced numbers of new cases. The fact it doesn't completely stop this doesn't mean they won't have an impact.

As I've said, I think negative tests should be an alternative to anyone not wanting to be vaccinated, I suspect the gov will go down that route anyway. And the fact that anyone with a "genuine medical reason" is exempt will probably mean enforcing it will go the same way as mask wearing.