Vaccine Passports

I'm in favour of vaccinations - they have done wonderful things over the years. All my kids have had their usual childhood jabs ( though to be sure anxious times after each).
I'm double jabbed - my better half was very dubious, we discussed and she took her appt ( mostly a cultural thing I guess) , she was even more dubious for the second ,again we discussed, the upshot being- it is entirely up to you dear.

Now we come to our young lad - and both of us are in something of a disarray in opinion. Not disagreement, just a deep quandary.
I'm old enough, ugly enough to make my own decision - for better or worse. Similar for wifey ( not ugly IMHO). a kind of my body my choice.
I don't think I'm wide of the mark when I say a lot of people thought being fully vaccinated meant you protecting others - when in fact you can still get covid and spread it around, so even less sure what this Vac Passport is going to show.

If listening to the "science" and the subsequent palming off to the Education area for, say " further advice" ( no vested interests there eh?) then we might just give it a swerve. Should I trust the science? or Boris and/or his motley Krew? I cannot reconcile getting him jabbed with something that may give him something serious ( albeit rare) against a bout of covid.
I am however very perturbed by having the - my body my choice - made into a political tool/issue and people getting lary - spitefully so in cases
 
Meanwhile in Thailand they are also demonstrating on the streets. But they are pro vax demonstrators. They are railing against the lack of supply.
 
tonymcandrewshattrick said:
I'm 53 years of age. I'm a mere pub in the existence of humanity, which is what over 300,000 years old. In those years NO human has ever killed another human by breathing on them until 18 months. Suddenly we (the humans) are now lethal killing rattlesnakes with a venomous deadly spit. For me it's a Hollywood script but for others it's a constructed reality. I've referenced it before that i'd rather trust the science rather than the scientists. That is the true science. I'm as equally scared of what's happening currently and hope that we've seen the back of it, but unfortunately I don't think we have.
Click to expand...
It's this level of ignorance that worries me.
 
SNOWBANDIT said:
I'm in favour of vaccinations - they have done wonderful things over the years. All my kids have had their usual childhood jabs ( though to be sure anxious times after each).
I'm double jabbed - my better half was very dubious, we discussed and she took her appt ( mostly a cultural thing I guess) , she was even more dubious for the second ,again we discussed, the upshot being- it is entirely up to you dear.

Now we come to our young lad - and both of us are in something of a disarray in opinion. Not disagreement, just a deep quandary.
I'm old enough, ugly enough to make my own decision - for better or worse. Similar for wifey ( not ugly IMHO). a kind of my body my choice.
I don't think I'm wide of the mark when I say a lot of people thought being fully vaccinated meant you protecting others - when in fact you can still get covid and spread it around, so even less sure what this Vac Passport is going to show.

If listening to the "science" and the subsequent palming off to the Education area for, say " further advice" ( no vested interests there eh?) then we might just give it a swerve. Should I trust the science? or Boris and/or his motley Krew? I cannot reconcile getting him jabbed with something that may give him something serious ( albeit rare) against a bout of covid.
I am however very perturbed by having the - my body my choice - made into a political tool/issue and people getting lary - spitefully so in cases
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1433877329705590785

If the JCVI aren't reccomending it for kids then I won't be giving it to my kids (granted the oldest one has just turned 5 but still).
 
As dooderooni says, some of the posts on this thread are frankly absurd. Misinterpretation of the Israeli report (whether deliberate or not), the vaccine not being for the greater good, the vaccine not being the safest method of protecting yourself, COVID denial, anti-vax craziness. I think social media and the availability of information but not expertise to be able to understand it is becoming a major, major problem. It seems to be making us dumber.

fullfact.org

Immunity through Covid infection is much riskier than a vaccine - Full Fact

Getting vaccinated is still effective, and far safer, whether you’ve had the disease or not.
fullfact.org fullfact.org
 
Adi_Dem said:
Bloody hell this is still going on? There is no counter argument here. Get the vaccine or don’t. That’s your choice. If you don’t though then your freedoms should be restricted. Simple.

If you think the vaccine is dangerous or a material risk, or a greater risk than catching the virus again that’s cool. You’re wrong of course but there is no crime in being wrong. Don’t have the vaccine. Nobody is forcing you. But there should be consequences to that choice for your own good and everyone else’s good.

Driving is dangerous. You might get hurt whilst driving. Medical evidence provides that drinking under the influence of alcohol is far, far more dangerous for the driver and every other road user. There are therefore laws restricting your freedom to do so for your own protection and the protection of others.

If you argue that you are a better driver after a few bevvies and that driving sober is actually more dangerous then you’re obviously wrong and so if you get behind the wheel drunk your licence will be taken off you and you won’t be allowed to drive again for a while. Consequences.

Smoking is dangerous. Passive smoking is dangerous. You’re free to exercise your freedom to smoke except in confined spaces with other people. Why? Because your choice damages their health. So there are restrictions to your freedom to protect the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Great post 👏 👏
 
Freedom of choice is fine, I totally 100% agree with it on a basic level, but it doesn't give them freedom of consequence. You can't have one and not the other.

Consequence 1: The older you are the more you're at risk, which is then multiplied if you have other health issues.
Consequence 2: You're more likely take up a bed, which could limit beds for others, and certainly has an effect on how our NHS operates, which is funded by everyone. 90% of over 16's have agreed to protect themselves and others, and 94% of healthcare workers the same, so majority rule, effectively.
Consequence 3: You're posing more risk to others from Covid
Consequence 4: The NHS can not run at the same rate as it could if everyone was vaccinated
Consequence 5: Economically we may have to take restrictive measures if it got out of hand. This is unlikely to be needed again, certainly not at the same levels as previous, basically as the amount of vaccinated have prevented this.
Consequence 6: If you're old enough and daft enough not to get it, then don't whine if you don't get your own way and don't get the same freedoms if you're going against 95% of people in your age group, and you're mixing heavily with those age groups.

It's different for those under 16 as they have a lot less personal risk-benefit, but they do have the same consequences 3,4 and 5, albeit lesser, as they're more likely to be mixing most with their own age groups.
JCVI have basically said "it's about the same" for 1 & 2, which is 100% correct, but have passed the buck to the government for them to decide if 3,4 and 5 matter enough to them, which is fair enough, it's not JVCI's job to look at 3,4 and 5, they don't run the country/ economy/ NHS.
Personally, I think they should allow under 16's for 3,4 and 5 reasons, but not mandate it or no vaccine passports for under 16's, i.e leave that up to the parents to decide if they want to reduce risk for others.
As time goes on 3,4 and 5 will have less impact if it's mandated or "vaccine passports" for over 16's where some don't seem capable of assessing their own risk, never mind risk to others. The older the people are that go against this, the worse they are, in my opinion.

Anyone over 30, which is probably most of this board, don't really have a valid argument against it, and I assume we're not arguing with under 16's using this forum.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
Freedom of choice is fine, I totally 100% agree with it on a basic level, but it doesn't give them freedom of consequence. You can't have one and not the other.

Consequence 1: The older you are the more you're at risk, which is then multiplied if you have other health issues.
Consequence 2: You're more likely take up a bed, which could limit beds for others, and certainly has an effect on how our NHS operates, which is funded by everyone. 90% of over 16's have agreed to protect themselves and others, and 94% of healthcare workers the same, so majority rule, effectively.
Consequence 3: You're posing more risk to others from Covid
Consequence 4: The NHS can not run at the same rate as it could if everyone was vaccinated
Consequence 5: Economically we may have to take restrictive measures if it got out of hand. This is unlikely to be needed again, certainly not at the same levels as previous, basically as the amount of vaccinated have prevented this.
Consequence 6: If you're old enough and daft enough not to get it, then don't whine if you don't get your own way and don't get the same freedoms if you're going against 95% of people in your age group, and you're mixing heavily with those age groups.

It's different for those under 16 as they have a lot less personal risk-benefit, but they do have the same consequences 3,4 and 5, albeit lesser, as they're more likely to be mixing most with their own age groups.
JCVI have basically said "it's about the same" for 1 & 2, which is 100% correct, but have passed the buck to the government for them to decide if 3,4 and 5 matter enough to them, which is fair enough, it's not JVCI's job to look at 3,4 and 5, they don't run the country/ economy/ NHS.
Personally, I think they should allow under 16's for 3,4 and 5 reasons, but not mandate it or no vaccine passports for under 16's, i.e leave that up to the parents to decide if they want to reduce risk for others.
As time goes on 3,4 and 5 will have less impact if it's mandated or "vaccine passports" for over 16's where some don't seem capable of assessing their own risk, never mind risk to others. The older the people are that go against this, the worse they are, in my opinion.

Anyone over 30, which is probably most of this board, don't really have an argument against it, and I assume we're not arguing with under 16's using this forum.
Click to expand...
Spot on
 
Andy_W said:
Freedom of choice is fine, I totally 100% agree with it on a basic level, but it doesn't give them freedom of consequence. You can't have one and not the other.

Consequence 1: The older you are the more you're at risk, which is then multiplied if you have other health issues.
Consequence 2: You're more likely take up a bed, which could limit beds for others, and certainly has an effect on how our NHS operates, which is funded by everyone. 90% of over 16's have agreed to protect themselves and others, and 94% of healthcare workers the same, so majority rule, effectively.
Consequence 3: You're posing more risk to others from Covid
Consequence 4: The NHS can not run at the same rate as it could if everyone was vaccinated
Consequence 5: Economically we may have to take restrictive measures if it got out of hand. This is unlikely to be needed again, certainly not at the same levels as previous, basically as the amount of vaccinated have prevented this.
Consequence 6: If you're old enough and daft enough not to get it, then don't whine if you don't get your own way and don't get the same freedoms if you're going against 95% of people in your age group, and you're mixing heavily with those age groups.

It's different for those under 16 as they have a lot less personal risk-benefit, but they do have the same consequences 3,4 and 5, albeit lesser, as they're more likely to be mixing most with their own age groups.
JCVI have basically said "it's about the same" for 1 & 2, which is 100% correct, but have passed the buck to the government for them to decide if 3,4 and 5 matter enough to them, which is fair enough, it's not JVCI's job to look at 3,4 and 5, they don't run the country/ economy/ NHS.
Personally, I think they should allow under 16's for 3,4 and 5 reasons, but not mandate it or no vaccine passports for under 16's, i.e leave that up to the parents to decide if they want to reduce risk for others.
As time goes on 3,4 and 5 will have less impact if it's mandated or "vaccine passports" for over 16's where some don't seem capable of assessing their own risk, never mind risk to others. The older the people are that go against this, the worse they are, in my opinion.

Anyone over 30, which is probably most of this board, don't really have an argument against it, and I assume we're not arguing with under 16's using this forum.
Click to expand...
If approved, it looks like 12-15 year olds will also be able to choose whether to have the vaccine or not, irrespective of their parents' views.
 
bear66 said:
If approved, it looks like 12-15 year olds will also be able to choose whether to have the vaccine or not, irrespective of their parents' views.
Click to expand...
Didn't expect that, but I'm fine with that, as they're at no more risk by getting it, so they couldn't really be making the wrong choice, unlike their parents who could make the wrong choice which becomes more "wrong" the older they are.

I don't think under 16's can buy any other over the counter drugs, but they certainly can do harm in the wrong quantities, so I understand why this choice would be different to that. It's not like they can OD on vaccines etc.
 
Andy_W said:
Didn't expect that, but I'm fine with that, as they're at no more risk by getting it, so they couldn't really be making the wrong choice, unlike their parents who could make the wrong choice which becomes more "wrong" the older they are.

I don't think under 16's can buy any other over the counter drugs, but they certainly can do harm in the wrong quantities, so I understand why this choice would be different to that. It's not like they can OD on vaccines etc.
Click to expand...
Zahawi when asked the question:

He was asked what would happen if a teenager wants the jab but their parents object.

Zahawi said:

What you essentially do is make sure that the clinicians discuss this with the parents [and] with the teenager and if they are then deemed to be able to make a decision that is competent, then that decision will will go in the favour of what the teenager decides to do.
 
bear66 said:
Zahawi when asked the question:

He was asked what would happen if a teenager wants the jab but their parents object.

Zahawi said:

What you essentially do is make sure that the clinicians discuss this with the parents [and] with the teenager and if they are then deemed to be able to make a decision that is competent, then that decision will will go in the favour of what the teenager decides to do.
Click to expand...
I think zahawi is wrong on this. Under 16 would need a court order to have any medical procedure or medicine against the wishes of their parent assuming the parent is deemed capable to make the decision and the child is deemed gillick competent.

I guess you could argue the parent is not competent to make the decision if they are refusing a vaccination but that would be the domain of the court to decide.
 
Laughing said:
I think zahawi is wrong on this. Under 16 would need a court order to have any medical procedure or medicine against the wishes of their parent assuming the parent is deemed capable to make the decision and the child is deemed gillick competent.

I guess you could argue the parent is not competent to make the decision if they are refusing a vaccination but that would be the domain of the court to decide.
Click to expand...

This isn’t correct in law. Under 16s can consent to medical treatment in this country in certain circumstances.
 
Laughing said:
I think zahawi is wrong on this. Under 16 would need a court order to have any medical procedure or medicine against the wishes of their parent assuming the parent is deemed capable to make the decision and the child is deemed gillick competent.

I guess you could argue the parent is not competent to make the decision if they are refusing a vaccination but that would be the domain of the court to decide.
Click to expand...
Zahawi is right. This is what the NHS site says:

Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.
 
bear66 said:
Zahawi is right. This is what the NHS site says:

Children under the age of 16 can consent to their own treatment if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment. This is known as being Gillick competent.
Click to expand...

Yup. A significant part of my dissertation was dedicated to Gillick consent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top