Vaccine passports

Not one practical solution given nor possible answers just responses to bits that people think they can argue against.

For example my point about forcing workers at a venue to be vaccinated, you can't. How do we pay for 65 million people to be vaccinated yearly, we can't? Who vaccinates 65 million people yearly, we can't? How will these vaccine certificates be secured? Who pays for biometric certificates? If someone can't afford them, perhaps they are saving their money for a bus to the foodbank, are they excluded from parts of society? I'll say it again then I am done, vaccine passports to take part in society are unworkable, illeagal and we can't afford to pay for it. And this says nothing about whether it is morally reprehensible to create a2 tier society based on medical history.
 
bear66 said:
Germany approved compulsory measles vaccination in 2019.
Click to expand...
Well, kind of but it wasn't quite made mandatory for the entire population.

They only made it, "mandatory for the following groups:
  • Children one year or older who attend daycare, school, or similar community facilities
  • Persons working in those facilities
  • Persons working in medical facilities
  • Persons living or working in refugee and asylum-seeker accommodations"
It also didn't apply to people with medical contra-indications or anyone born before 1971.

Germany's Measles Protection Act
 
Liamo said:
Well, kind of but it wasn't quite made mandatory for the entire population.

They only made it, "mandatory for the following groups:
  • Children one year or older who attend daycare, school, or similar community facilities
  • Persons working in those facilities
  • Persons working in medical facilities
  • Persons living or working in refugee and asylum-seeker accommodations"
It also didn't apply to people with medical contra-indications or anyone born before 1971.

Germany's Measles Protection Act
Click to expand...

Interesting information. Certainly I didn't realise that the idea of compulsory vaccinations for employees, while appealing to protect the vulnerable they are working with had been made mandatory.

These steps certainly wouldn't lead to vaccine passports though. I suspect countries with limited exposure to the virus would likely explore vaccination passports as a level of protection (you would still likely have to quarantine and follow other safety procedures on entry, unless you're rich).

For local activities it will be at the discretion of the sector, and I expect will be quickly challenged in court due to the potential discriminatory nature of it. The law will decide whether the risk assessment leading to vaccination requirement to enter/ participate stands up to scrutiny.
 
Laughing said:
Not one practical solution given nor possible answers just responses to bits that people think they can argue against.

For example my point about forcing workers at a venue to be vaccinated, you can't. How do we pay for 65 million people to be vaccinated yearly, we can't? Who vaccinates 65 million people yearly, we can't? How will these vaccine certificates be secured? Who pays for biometric certificates? If someone can't afford them, perhaps they are saving their money for a bus to the foodbank, are they excluded from parts of society? I'll say it again then I am done, vaccine passports to take part in society are unworkable, illeagal and we can't afford to pay for it. And this says nothing about whether it is morally reprehensible to create a2 tier society based on medical history.
Click to expand...

You are taking this to the extreme.

If you worked in a care home or hospital for example workers should be vaccinated. That would be reasonable. And your employer would pay for your jab. This could be put in law and voted on annually to see if it was still needed dependant on the state of the pandemic.

Workers in other industries wouldn't need vaccinations - pubs, shops, offices etc

There might be a vaccine passport whilst vaccines are free from the Gov but as soon as we had to start paying for them it would have to stop. The Gov could maybe pay for them for a couple of years and then the system would merge into the existing flu vaccine scheme - hopefully we'd have dual vaccines by then.

If you need a certificate to go abroad you should have to pay for that.

The Gov could use the Covid app for a passport solution if one was needed. Vaccine exemptions would be granted access to passports, only people who could take the vaccine and chose not to wouldn't. Harsh but if a passport was needed surely that's how it would work for a year or so.

After 12-18 months there would be no passports for domestic activity, if you get a free flu jab you get a free Covid jab, if you pay for a flu jab you can pay for a Covid jab. Job done. Normal life continues. No one needs to wet their knickers anymore.
 
Molteni, reasonably detailed reply. Thanks for that, I am not going to engage again on the topic, not because of your post or any single post or poster, it's just going round in circles.

Have a good one.
 
Alvez_48 said:
So you're entire approach is to build a straw man and attack that rather then what is actually said. Now twice implying that it's about the vaccine not the use of 'vaccine passports' for access to the pub. Have a good one mate you win I'm out.
Click to expand...
Alvez_48 said:
Vaccine passport to go to the pub / gym etc...

...essentially makes vaccination mandatory which contravenes human rights law.
Click to expand...
Your argument against the passport is predicated on your argument that mandatory vaccines are somehow problematic.

The second quote is from your very first post on the thread. I can only read your words, not your mind. If I've misinterpreted your position then I apologise. I was responding to the idea that the vaccine being mandatory (for those that aren't exempt) should ever be a problem in civilised society.

Herd-immunity only works if the majority are vaccinated. If a large number of people (say 40% of the population) CHOOSE not get vaccinated then vaccine passports make sense. I can choose not to get a driving licence which means I cant (legally) drive.

If we get to the 80% required for herd-immunity then there should be no need for them - even if 20% don't/can't. I'm pretty sure there will be no political will for them unless there is a large proportion of people not being vaccinated - it would be a complicated process to sort out and we've seen what they managed with four years to prepare for Brexit & £22Bn to build Track & Trace.

My only caveat is that a passport for the period between opening up after lockdown and everyone being vaccinated is slightly unfair, but it's a price worth paying as long as it's a relatively short period (in my opinion) - and will probably have to rely on a large amount of trust anyway due to the problems with setting it up.
 
Very last post because frankly it's ridiculous to do this over and over but yet again you literally go from strawman to strawman argument @Scrote.

My comment in my first post is just stating the fact that it is against human rights law to discriminate on the basis of vaccine status.

And my opinion that it's fine for international travel and not fine for the state to decide locally.

If owners of establishments decide they wish to do it, go for it their business decision but ultimately it will likely be costly to them.

I have no problem taking a vaccine I have a problem with discrimination, something selectively applied on this thread.
 
There already is (effectively) a vaccine passport. After vaccination, you're given a card stating the type of vaccine and the date and advised to keep it with you. I've had my first (AstraZeneca) vaccine and there's space on the card to add the second dose details later on. It'll be interesting to see if I'm ever asked to produce it as proof of vaccination. It doesn't seem to me much different from the old yellow fever vaccination card.

I believe the airlines are thinking of requiring evidence of vaccination or of a negative covid test. Of course, the airlines will have to check that passengers have the documents required for entry to the destination, as they do that now.
 
Scrote said:
Yes. If that's required to keep the situation under control then that's precisely what the NHS is for.

If we only need to cover over 55's then we do that.

If we need to cover everyone, we do that.

It's actually sensible medically, socially AND financially - we can estimate the costs and set up the provision far more easily than if we wait until there's another outbreak and a return to lockdown.
Click to expand...

As has been mentioned already how does a barely functioning NHS in a normal winter vaccinate 65 million people every year?

The logistics of a vaccine passport don't add up and won't ever work or be fair for everybody who want the vaccine.

On another note I've seen the yellow fever used as an argument, only 15 countries on the planet require it.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Very last post because frankly it's ridiculous to do this over and over but yet again you literally go from strawman to strawman argument @Scrote.

My comment in my first post is just stating the fact that it is against human rights law to discriminate on the basis of vaccine status.

And my opinion that it's fine for international travel and not fine for the state to decide locally.

If owners of establishments decide they wish to do it, go for it their business decision but ultimately it will likely be costly to them.

I have no problem taking a vaccine I have a problem with discrimination, something selectively applied on this thread.
Click to expand...
As I've already stated, I can only read what you've written. If it doesn't come across in the way you intended, then maybe you need to double check that you're getting across what you mean. Strawman doesn't mean "different interpretation to what's in my head".

Here's the Human Rights Act can you just point to the line that suggests mandating a vaccine is discrimination.

I fully understand that you might think it a massive imposition to require people to produce a passport style document to go about daily life. I agree with that in a general sense.

However, the more nuanced answer from me is that society is a lot less cohesive than it has been in the past and by allowing people to make their own health decisions - where that can directly affect someone else - is just asking for trouble. Which is why we 'force' childern to go to the dentist etc.

I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that some people still don't take the virus seriously and to be quite frank I don't see why someone who can't have the vaccine should be put at risk by someone that can but chooses not to because Bill Gates might have invented a nano-scale tracking device.

It's not discrimination to ask people to wear a hard hat and strong shoes when entering a building site. You have a choice follow the rules or you don't get access. If they only have five hats and six people want access then tough, someone misses out.

I don't think it's a good short-term solution as people shouldn't be penalised if they've not been offered the vaccine - although combining it with a proof-of-test might be feasible.

In the longer term, IF the take-up doesn't reach herd-immunity levels then as far as I can see it's the only reasonable solution. Harsh but fair - discriminate against people making an active choice not to be socially responsible rather than those who aren't able to make a choice at all.

Hopefully it won't come to that.
 
Scrote said:
As I've already stated, I can only read what you've written. If it doesn't come across in the way you intended, then maybe you need to double check that you're getting across what you mean. Strawman doesn't mean "different interpretation to what's in my head".

Here's the Human Rights Act can you just point to the line that suggests mandating a vaccine is discrimination.

I fully understand that you might think it a massive imposition to require people to produce a passport style document to go about daily life. I agree with that in a general sense.

However, the more nuanced answer from me is that society is a lot less cohesive than it has been in the past and by allowing people to make their own health decisions - where that can directly affect someone else - is just asking for trouble. Which is why we 'force' childern to go to the dentist etc.

I've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that some people still don't take the virus seriously and to be quite frank I don't see why someone who can't have the vaccine should be put at risk by someone that can but chooses not to because Bill Gates might have invented a nano-scale tracking device.

It's not discrimination to ask people to wear a hard hat and strong shoes when entering a building site. You have a choice follow the rules or you don't get access. If they only have five hats and six people want access then tough, someone misses out.

I don't think it's a good short-term solution as people shouldn't be penalised if they've not been offered the vaccine - although combining it with a proof-of-test might be feasible.

In the longer term, IF the take-up doesn't reach herd-immunity levels then as far as I can see it's the only reasonable solution. Harsh but fair - discriminate against people making an active choice not to be socially responsible rather than those who aren't able to make a choice at all.

Hopefully it won't come to that.
Click to expand...
There has been a very interesting prediction from a member of the independent SAGE.
Herd immunity threshold by May 16th. 👀

https://twitter.com/x/status/1365052605320339464
 
Randy said:
As has been mentioned already how does a barely functioning NHS in a normal winter vaccinate 65 million people every year?
Click to expand...
Laughing said:
If we want to vaccinate everyone next year how do we do that?
Click to expand...

How do we feed 65 million people every day? Logistics.

How difficult is it to administer a vaccine safely? Training.

I'd guess that if we need a yearly booster over the next few years then we'll manage quite adequately if the government decides it's a priority that needs addressing. But then you get the government that you vote for so we might be screwed...

Train up and pay people who've lost their jobs due to the pandemic (and/or Brexit). When I got my TB jab I vaguely recall the nurse was in the school for a couple of days to get through a year group of ~125 pupils. It doesn't take much maths to work out that one nurse can do 500 people in a week (conservatively).

5,000 nurses = 2,500,000 a week = 26 weeks

That give us 26 weeks to train up enough nurses (assuming there's no overlap between being trained and starting the vaccination programme).

That's roughy 200 nurses a week. There are ~70 cities in the UK. Add a few large towns and you're looking at training 2 people per week per location.

Even at a very reasonable £35k per year each (salary plus associated costs) that's only £175 Million. Not much more than ONE of the dodgy PPE contracts and a fraction of the Test & Trace costs.

Administer the virus from election polling stations (usually chosen for accessibility and the fact they're in use so not much extra overhead).

How hard was that (feel free to double check the maths - there's probably a howler in there somewhere, but even if it's out by a factor of 10 it's still £22Bn less than the T&T with rounding).
 
Randy said:
There has been a very interesting prediction from a member of the independent SAGE.
Herd immunity threshold by May 16th.
Click to expand...
Very comforting if true, although it feels early to my layman's understanding.

And I thought the threshold was a bit higher than 68% but again, I'm not an expert.

Suppose we wait and see what other experts response is, but cautious optimism and hopefully no need for Covid Passports (unless the ERG demand them instead of Blue ones).
 
Scrote said:
Very comforting if true, although it feels early to my layman's understanding.

And I thought the threshold was a bit higher than 68% but again, I'm not an expert.

Suppose we wait and see what other experts response is, but cautious optimism and hopefully no need for Covid Passports (unless the ERG demand them instead of Blue ones).
Click to expand...
From what I've read the 80% figure been bandied about for herd immunity was with no vaccination program.
 
Scrote said:
Very comforting if true, although it feels early to my layman's understanding.

And I thought the threshold was a bit higher than 68% but again, I'm not an expert.

Suppose we wait and see what other experts response is, but cautious optimism and hopefully no need for Covid Passports (unless the ERG demand them instead of Blue ones).
Click to expand...
It's related to the Ro. If the Kent variant is 70% more transmissible than the previous variant, it could have an Ro of 9. With that level of contagiousness, herd immunity could require 90% of the population with antibodies. Measles, with an Ro of 12-18, requires 95% for herd immunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top