Can someone explain the logic to me please

[ChristmasScrooge]

How does this make sense?

We have to mask up on public transport and shops... but you can go into a nightclub where people are hugging/mingling more and you don't have to wear one?

WHERE IS THE LOGIC?

Anyone else fed up of all coronavirus crap? Let us live, the death toll isn't correct. Whose to say those people didn't test positive but yet died of cancer? Or got hit by a bus or whatever?

And how does having a vaccine protect others? When you can still catch covid and pass it on?

None of it makes any sense.

Yes, "all" a vaccine passport does is show that you're vaccinated (and therefore are considerably less likely to both have and spread Covid) but its massive advantage is that it is straightforward, easily verifiable and cost-effective.

As we can immediately see, a 'provide a negative test system' is immediately going to run into an immensely complex scenario of either 'trusting' people to provide an accurate result, or in-house testing facilities, training for staff, a system where venues have to purchase, oversee and report test results, plus increase their prices to cover the costs etc. What happens when you get a void test when you're wanting to get into the movie? Forget showing up to the cinema 5 minutes before the movie starts.

It's just immensely impractical and expensive. Sure, you would probably reduce the incidences of Covid in the venue, but the cost and inconvenience required to get there is insane. People would just stop going out so much, which ultimately is not good for business.

On the other hand, you could require vaccine certificates, which – by incentivising people to get vaccinated if they want to participate fully in society – increases overall population vaccination levels, which has a large-scale protective effect and decreases individual risk levels, poor health outcomes and pressure on hospitals. This is a sensible, more cost effective and long-term strategy.

Neither is perfect but one is clearly better.

@AlohaMolly

But vaccine passports don’t mean you aren’t carrying the virus. All presenting a vaccine passport does is prove that you’ve had a vaccine.

It's not about infection tho it's ultimately about hospital pressures. If everyone recovered at home do you think we would have done anything? If this had been a recovery at home I can guarantee the only memory of it would be some meme of Borris singing happy birthday.

The vaccine reduced hospital pressures, if we don't reduce pressure we risk lockdown therefore shielding and vaccine should be mandatory.

@Happypootle

dabby it's not my 'genius plan' it's the system already in use, admittedly flawed but still more likely to detect current infections than proof of a months-old vaccination. I'm baffled that this is even controversial.

Where is it in use, on a mass scale, for hospitality venues and events? I don't know of anywhere on earth. They are doing this in Switzerland for unvaccinated people, and they have to turn up really early and pay for them using their own (expensive) health insurance or out of their own pocket. The fact you think this is a better solution all around than scanning a vaccine QR code is hilarious. You really think people will be willing to pay for these tests every time they fancy a drink in a pub or to pop into a cafe for a sandwich or a takeaway latte?

It's not controversial, it's inane.

I have never said people shouldn’t get vaccinated, vaccines are great at preventing serious illness, hospitalisation and death, I’ve said that several times.

What vaccine passports prove is that you’ve been vaccinated. They do not prove that you don’t have covid at any specific time.

My original post on this thread was specifically saying that, if venues want to admit people that are covid free, negative, recent tests are a more logical way of doing so than solely admitting those with vaccine passports.

It clearly can be done, as it was done in secondary schools. It may well take a period of adjustment, some logistical some financial, but if the goal is to have people entering venues without infection, it can’t be by using a vaccine passport that shows someone had a vaccine five months ago. I don’t understand why that seems to be such a contentious view point.

@AlohaMolly

I have never said people shouldn’t get vaccinated, vaccines are great at preventing serious illness, hospitalisation and death, I’ve said that several times.

What vaccine passports prove is that you’ve been vaccinated. They do not prove that you don’t have covid at any specific time.

My original post on this thread was specifically saying that, if venues want to admit people that are covid free, negative, recent tests are a more logical way of doing so than solely admitting those with vaccine passports.

It clearly can be done, as it was done in secondary schools. It may well take a period of adjustment, some logistical some financial, but if the goal is to have people entering venues without infection, it can’t be by using a vaccine passport that shows someone had a vaccine five months ago. I don’t understand why that seems to be such a contentious view point.

But they're not a more logical way! That's the point! They're not very effective, they're time consuming, expensive and a hassle. What part of that makes you think 'logical'?

It was done in secondary schools because they had no choice - the kids weren't and couldn't be vaccinated and school is an essential place where you can't exclude people for not being vaccinated, unlike a hospitality venue. Lateral flow tests were the best they could do and they were far from foolproof - plenty of kids had negative tests and then went and infected loads of others.

You seem to think the goal is 'make sure not a single person has covid'. That''s not the goal. The goal is to reduce the chances of infection while also trying to keep venues running more or less normally.

It's not a contentious viewpoint, it just shows a profound lack of understanding of pretty much every aspect of how this all works.

I don’t understand why that seems to be such a contentious view point.

Understanding comes from considering more in much more detail the immense cost and logistics issues you're waving away as "a period of adjustment, some logistical some financial".

@ChristmasScrooge

How does this make sense?

We have to mask up on public transport and shops... but you can go into a nightclub where people are hugging/mingling more and you don't have to wear one?

WHERE IS THE LOGIC?

Anyone else fed up of all coronavirus crap? Let us live, the death toll isn't correct. Whose to say those people didn't test positive but yet died of cancer? Or got hit by a bus or whatever?

And how does having a vaccine protect others? When you can still catch covid and pass it on?

None of it makes any sense.

The logic is that consistency doesn't matter here. The only thing that matters is picking enough measures that they keep covid cases low enough that the hospitals and general infrastructure cope, but not so many that it trashes the economy. It's a balancing act.

The government is not saying "you can go to these places unmasked because it's safe" - what they're saying, in effect, is "you can go here unmasked, because if everyone does it, it won't add up to a hospital crisis (and it keeps certain industries safe), but you can't go there without a mask, because if everyone does that too then we might get a hospital crisis".

It's like someone said on another thread (sorry I can't remember who) - governments don't (can't) care whether as individuals we die, need hospital, or lose our jobs - all they are able to care about is making sure not too many of us at once do each of those things.

So some people will die who might have lived, some people will end up in hospital who might have stayed healthy, some jobs will go and some industries will suffer more than others, in this balancing act. But if they can do it right, they will manage to make sure that neither the effects on hospitals or the economy are disastrously bad - just bad.

That's why consistency doesn't matter - they aren't advising us as citizens what to do to keep consistently safe in all areas of life, they're advising us as a population as a whole what to do to keep a functioning society reasonably safe.

It's not binary, that's why.

If masks are worn in shops and in public transport, it might cut transmission by 50% (made up number). Thus reducing hospital admissions. But at the same time protecting the economy by not requiring them in nightclubs and restaurants.

Likewise with schools. Wearing them in corridors but not in classrooms reduces the likelihood of transmission without it affecting teaching.

The objective isn't to eliminate transmission altogether, it's to mitigate it. Not saying I agree with it, but I can understand the logic behind it.

And also, a lot of people don't seem to grasp that they're perfectly free to wear masks everywhere indoors if they want to. I've been doing it since last March. I'm still sitting outside at the pub, even in this freezing weather, and still wearing a mask to go to the loo or order at the bar. The government don't believe people will follow rules as strict as these, so they're putting in some bare minimum restrictions that should make a positive difference while still allowing people to enjoy things like gyms, pubs and restaurants unmasked.

I recently went to a concert in London. Venue holds thousands. Vaccine passports a requirement of entry.

I assumed that meant they would be scanning the QR code on entry. But no. They just wanted you hold your phone up so they could glance at it.

It could have been a screenshot of someone else’s for all they would have known. Didn’t check my name or that it was legit, just literally held up my phone and the guy literally glanced at it from a distance away and waved me through.

I’m assuming they didn’t scan as then they would be ‘collecting data’ and subject to GDPR.

But from a Covid point of view - made the whole thing utterly pointless.

@Rinoachicken

I recently went to a concert in London. Venue holds thousands. Vaccine passports a requirement of entry.

I assumed that meant they would be scanning the QR code on entry. But no. They just wanted you hold your phone up so they could glance at it.

It could have been a screenshot of someone else’s for all they would have known. Didn’t check my name or that it was legit, just literally held up my phone and the guy literally glanced at it from a distance away and waved me through.

I’m assuming they didn’t scan as then they would be ‘collecting data’ and subject to GDPR.

But from a Covid point of view - made the whole thing utterly pointless.

Not completely pointless. It would have put off most people without vaccine certificates because they wouldn't have known it wouldn't be properly checked. Of course, if every event is like this then people will quickly catch on so they really should be properly scanning most of the time.

And who's to say you even took it properly, or at all?

Oh you mean one is actually meant to do the LFT rather than just upload whichever result one wants that day.
If the purpose of them was to test people, surely they would be more than 50% reliable and wouldn't have involved spaffing money at one of Boris' mates, but rather at a company that knew about testing?

For those who think that vaccine passports , mandating vaccines is fine.

From which activities should the unvaccinated be barred?

Is it acceptable to prevent the unvaccinated from travelling by all air and rail services both domestically and internationally with no option for a negative test or proof of recovery?

Would it be acceptable to prevent people from leaving the country if they aren't vaccinated?

Prevent them from earning a living?

There are a lot of mentions here when discussing the passports of preventing access to hospitality venues and to large gatherings.

Those things are fairly minor in the scheme of things compared to what is actually happening with these passports worldwide

@ktel1

For those who think that vaccine passports , mandating vaccines is fine.

From which activities should the unvaccinated be barred?

Is it acceptable to prevent the unvaccinated from travelling by all air and rail services both domestically and internationally with no option for a negative test or proof of recovery?

Would it be acceptable to prevent people from leaving the country if they aren't vaccinated?

Prevent them from earning a living?

There are a lot of mentions here when discussing the passports of preventing access to hospitality venues and to large gatherings.

Those things are fairly minor in the scheme of things compared to what is actually happening with these passports worldwide

I would ban them from everything yes, unless medically excluded form vaccination.

Clown Planet. Enjoy the NWO.

@WildfirePonie

Clown Planet. Enjoy the NWO.

😂😂

vickyc90
'I would ban them from everything yes, unless medically excluded form vaccination."

So when you say absolutely everything you would also prevent them from obtaining food and shelter?

@stressedy

were heading for a lockdown i wont comply with masks and i wont comply with a lockdown.

You do realise that by refusing to comply with current measures to curb the spread, you are actively increasing the risk of another lockdown, don't you? 🤦🏼‍♀️

^@AlohaMolly
‘But vaccine passports don’t mean you aren’t carrying the virus. All presenting a vaccine passport does is prove that you’ve had a vaccine.’^

Neither will a LFT, their accuracy rate is such that they are only really useful if they are positive. And that’s without considering how easy it would be to get a negative LFT in the first place.
Of course there must be fake vaccine passports around too, but millions of people have been genuinely vaccinated so the the vast majority would be genuine, surely?
Neither system is perfect but it’s about reducing risk, not eliminating it.

@ktel1

vickyc90 'I would ban them from everything yes, unless medically excluded form vaccination."

So when you say absolutely everything you would also prevent them from obtaining food and shelter?

They could order online or you know get the vaccine. To be fair I would mandate the vaccine and fine them for everyday they don't comply. Wouldn't be against the army tracking them down and forcing the vaccine in them if it stops restrictions

"To be fair I would mandate the vaccine and fine them for everyday they don't comply. Wouldn't be against the army tracking them down and forcing the vaccine in them if it stops restrictions"

And there we have it.

[quote Upwardtrajectory]^@AlohaMolly
‘But vaccine passports don’t mean you aren’t carrying the virus. All presenting a vaccine passport does is prove that you’ve had a vaccine.’^

Neither will a LFT, their accuracy rate is such that they are only really useful if they are positive. And that’s without considering how easy it would be to get a negative LFT in the first place.
Of course there must be fake vaccine passports around too, but millions of people have been genuinely vaccinated so the the vast majority would be genuine, surely?
Neither system is perfect but it’s about reducing risk, not eliminating it.[/quote]
Given that 81% of those over 12 have had 2 doses of vaccine and 89% one dose most people in any crowd will be vaccinated, so requiring a vaccine passport changes the risk in the crowd very little.

LTF are unreliable when done by a professional, and so when done at home, one gets the result one wants, if one chooses to.
So I suggest living as a hermit.

@ktel1

"To be fair I would mandate the vaccine and fine them for everyday they don't comply. Wouldn't be against the army tracking them down and forcing the vaccine in them if it stops restrictions"

And there we have it.

That'll be why they want to get rid of the Human Rights Act.

jgw1
That'll be why they want to get rid of the Human Rights Act.

They don't even need to do that in Canada. The Charter isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Most of the cases brought fourth are rejected by the courts.