Covid vaccines: ‘Immunity passport’ may be used for admission to pubs, restaurants and sporting venues

[Heam44]

No you are not missing anything. Two issues though. The first one is that the right to medical privacy is enshrined in the NHS constitution, so would be very difficult to change. Secondly a venue, could, of course, make the stipulation, but it would be breaking the law. Perhaps the government would turn a blind eye to the contravention.

So you would you not be open to a minor change in the law in the interests of protecting people from covid?

 

[Abel Tasman]

I suspect Qantas will introduce this for all who want to travel on their airlines. I also suspect if you want to go to the Tokyo Olympics as a spectator you will need to produce your vaccinations cert to be allowed to travel there. Like it or not it will be introduced initially for opening up travel.

 

[Liamo]

If previously someone said 'To enter any public venue you will have to scan a QR code on your phone to confirm you've been vaccinated, where you've been and what you've been doing.' you would be called a tin foil hat nut job.

'Because to take away a man's freedom of choice, even his freedom to make the wrong choice, is to manipulate him as though he were a puppet and not a person.' - Madeline L'Engle

So based on this principle, I take it you'll be starting your campaign agains seat-belts being required to be worn in cars soon, then?

 

[Randy]

So based on this principle, I take it you'll be starting your campaign agains seat-belts being required to be worn in cars soon, then?

That is completely different and you know it.

5/10 for effort though.

 

[Mwelolo]

I would support the idea as a safer way of moving forward, opening up our country again and allowing us to travel.

 

[Laughing]

So you would you not be open to a minor change in the law in the interests of protecting people from covid?

Freedoms are always removed under the guise of protecting us Heam. So no I wouldn't be in favour of it. Other countries can and will do as they please. I would be dead against it in the uk because it is a fundamental invasion of our privacy. It destroys the notion that we are all equal and any change in legislation is likely to be nuanced enough to give government the power to take much more than we were told about. Look at the covid bill for an example of this.

I am also struggling to see how, once vaccinated this legislation protects people.

 

[FatCat]

“Freedoms are always removed under the guise of protecting”

That’s beCause they are protecting us yet conspiracy theorists dream up other reasons.

Laughing , as you feel so strongly about this, can you comment on these two scenarios?

Countries requiring us to have vaccinations before entry eg yellow fever etc. This has been the case for years. No conspiracy just protecting themselves and us - as per this current proposal.

Requiring a negative covid test to visit a relative in a care home - can you explain what freedoms one this is taking away?

You can talk about this and that being legal but you are ignoring common sense.Both of the above examples protect people ( nothing more nothing less) to apply the same approach to other scenarios such as visiting the pub seems equally as sensible.

 

[A]

There seems to be a focus on talking away our freedoms, however my view is that Covid passports are a means to an end to return us to the freedoms pre-pandemic, rather than the life we live now where so many of our freedoms are severely restricted

As for the illegality of refusing someone entrance to a venue - any person can be refused if, for example, they are deemed to have had too much to drink or cannot provide the correct ID. I fail to understand how showing a similar Covid passport is really so different to proving you are over 18 (or 21 or even 25 in certain venues - my local operates an over 21 policy and is not breaking any laws that I can find) by means of showing a passport or driving licence

The notion that this is a slippery slope towards totalitarianism and removing all our freedoms and rights is a bit melodramatic in my opinion - but lets not forget that's all it is, just my opinion

 

[Laughing]

FatCat the first example is a matter for other countries to legislate on and each individual is free to make that choice. Visit our not.

For care homes, two things, firstly it is a matter of choice, though I accept that it's a hobsons choice. Secondly it is a limited divergence and based on test not medical history as the test result if negative is meaningless as soon as you come into contact with someone else. It's not a long term medical record.

Neither of those examples create a two tier society.

 

[Laughing]

There seems to be a focus on talking away our freedoms, however my view is that Covid passports are a means to an end to return us to the freedoms pre-pandemic, rather than the life we live now where so many of our freedoms are severely restricted

As for the illegality of refusing someone entrance to a venue - any person can be refused if, for example, they are deemed to have had too much to drink or cannot provide the correct ID. I fail to understand how showing a similar Covid passport is really so different to proving you are over 18 (or 21 or even 25 in certain venues - my local operates an over 21 policy and is not breaking any laws that I can find) by means of showing a passport or driving licence

The notion that this is a slippery slope towards totalitarianism and removing all our freedoms and rights is a bit melodramatic in my opinion - but lets not forget that's all it is, just my opinion

Artie, your rhetoric aside, business cannot refuse entry for any reason, they couldn't, for example, refuse entry to a cripple.

As for it being a slippery slope, look at the covid bill for an example of legislation that wanted an inch and took a mile. All of our rights are precious and governments don't remove them to protect us. As an example, wording of a bill to make our medical records open to a government could very quickly become a dna database.

I will say this once more, the government could not make public any part of our medical history. The reason this is enshrined in the NHS constitution was to fundamentally protect us when using the NHS. It was thought important enough in 2009 to guarantee our right to medical privacy and the same is true today.

 

[FatCat]

FatCat the first example is a matter for other countries to legislate on and each individual is free to make that choice. Visit our not.

I see you keep saying that but what we are talking about is a concept and the concept is exactly the same. I don’t see how you can discount it as that’s the other countries business

For care homes, two things, firstly it is a matter of choice, though I accept that it's a hobsons choice. Secondly it is a limited divergence and based on test not medical history as the test result if negative is meaningless as soon as you come into contact with someone else. It's not a long term medical record.
Isn’t that’s what was suggested in the op that you need a negative test result?

Neither of those examples create a two tier society.

 

[FatCat]

This is from the article in the op, it’s not suggesting access to your medical records in their entirety just that you’ve had the vaccine, there are many ways this could be supported without the need to disclose all of your medical

“People may be barred from entering pubs, restaurants and sporting venues unless they can prove they have been inoculated for Covid-19 once the vaccine is made available next year, the health minister said.”

 

[FatCat]

Artie, your rhetoric aside, business cannot refuse entry for any reason, they couldn't, for example, refuse entry to a cripple.

[/Q

Just as an FYI

The words cripple and crippled are no longer considered appropriate. Although these terms have been in use since before the year 950, since the mid-1900s they have become increasingly uncommon and are now regarded as insulting.

 

[Laughing]

Never knew that FatCat what word should you use?

 

[Cambsred]

On deeper thought- if we are talking about travelling Internationally it may also depend which vaccine you're had to whether a country accepts you.

If they deem a vaccine unsafe/ not effective enough could they close their borders to you?

 

[Laughing]

This is from the article in the op, it’s not suggesting access to your medical records in their entirety just that you’ve had the vaccine, there are many ways this could be supported without the need to disclose all of your medical

“People may be barred from entering pubs, restaurants and sporting venues unless they can prove they have been inoculated for Covid-19 once the vaccine is made available next year, the health minister said.”

I get that the government are saying they don't want access to my entire medical history, however, and this is really important, the covid bill allows indefinite incarceration under quite a lot of covid circumstances, the NHS constitution stops most of those covid bill powers to be enacted, they are at odds with each other. Now ask yourself why a government would pass the covid bill when it's not enforceable, and 9 months later infringe on the NHS constitution which would make the covid bill enactable?

Now this could be coincidence, what do you think?

 

[FatCat]

Never knew that FatCat what word should you use?

As with all terminology it seems to be constantly evolving - - personally I would use disabled but even that could be wrong.

 

[A]

Artie, your rhetoric aside, business cannot refuse entry for any reason, they couldn't, for example, refuse entry to a cripple.

As for it being a slippery slope, look at the covid bill for an example of legislation that wanted an inch and took a mile. All of our rights are precious and governments don't remove them to protect us. As an example, wording of a bill to make our medical records open to a government could very quickly become a dna database.

I will say this once more, the government could not make public any part of our medical history. The reason this is enshrined in the NHS constitution was to fundamentally protect us when using the NHS. It was thought important enough in 2009 to guarantee our right to medical privacy and the same is true today.

apart from using outdated language which some will find offensive, you are factually incorrect - a pub an refuse entry and refuse to serve you if, when requested, you do not produce satisfactory proof of age

 

[FatCat]

I get that the government are saying they don't want access to my entire medical history, however, and this is really important, the covid bill allows indefinite incarceration under quite a lot of covid circumstances, the NHS constitution stops most of those covid bill powers to be enacted, they are at odds with each other. Now ask yourself why a government would pass the covid bill when it's not enforceable, and 9 months later infringe on the NHS constitution which would make the covid bill enactable?

Now this could be coincidence, what do you think?

You’ve lost me a bit here - I’ll have to read up on the bill But I would maintain the most obvious reason is the most likely one in that they are trying to protect people by limiting the spread of covid.

 

[Erimus74]

Passport for pubs, sporting events or Music venues

Would this change people’s views on the Vaccine if you couldn’t attend any mass gathering like going to home games, or going to Gigs or even to pubs or restaurants without proof of being vaccinated?

What about people who can't physically have the vaccine, people on certain medication, pregnant mothers, it's penalising people straight away, big no from me