# Vaccine Passports (domestic).



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

Would be interested to hear people's views on this, especially interested to see if the views align with other views on C19/Lockdown/Vaccination etc. 

So are you pro or against? Why?


----------



## paulrbarnard (24 Feb 2021)

Domestically it is pointless and probably unenforceable. once vaccine is widely available to everyone, which seems to be mid this year, then the assumption should simply be that everyone has had it. If people chose not to thats their choice. 
I doubt government, any of them, could get a system in place that would be viable anyway. Look at the fiasco of track and trace in the first wave. 
I would welcome it to avoid quarantine internationally.


----------



## AES (24 Feb 2021)

There already IS such a "passport". Issued by (or designed by) - I think - the W.H.O; - it's a little yellow booklet (the first ones were green I seem to remember).

I had one for my international travels LONG before we'd ever heard of Covid. In my case it was issued by whomever did my first "international" jab (I think it was British Caledonian Airways at Gatwick in the early 1970's, which shows how long ago it was). It contains a page each for all sorts of "international" jabs such as Typhoid, Yellow Fever, Hepatitus B, etc, etc, and interestingly, also a page for anti Tetanus.

That last applies not only internationally but is commonly used inside a specific country for anyone who's had an injury where Tetanus poisoning is likely - not just dog bites. E.G I had a fall a while back and quite seriously injured my knees (very bloody anyway) and just to be sure, my GP asked to check my "little yellow book". Sure enough, my last anti-Tetanus was out of date by only a few months (it lasts 10 years) so I got another - in the "sit upon" as per usual! It HURTS!!!

My current "little yellow book" has just been updated to include the 2 Covid jabs I had in Jan and Feb (my wife's too, incidentally).

Personally I can't see why that can't be used for "domestic" purposes, as per my Tetanus example above - even though I don't think those little yellow books were designed for that purpose originally.

The point to remember is that the fact that you've been jabbed against anything is NOT proof that you can't catch whatever it is, NOR that you can't be carrying it, even though not affected/no symptoms yourself. In the case of my Covid jabs I understand from the data issued by the Swiss Govt, my Covid jab is about 95% "safe". BUT, as said, it doesn't mean 100% that I haven't got it/still can't get it.

So overall, I consider the little yellow book as a good, pretty certain indicator, but it's not 100%.

I overheard some politician on, I think BBC Radio 4, rabbiting on about issuing such "passports" as creating a two-level society (those who been jabbed and those who haven't). I've no idea which politician and which party, but I thought that his argument was utter bilge - as well as being a very short-term outlook (isn't everyone in UK who wants to be scheduled to be Covid-jabbed by end 2021)?

So personally I don't see that for those who don't already have their "little yellow book" they can't be issued by the injection "applier" along with the first Covid jab.

NOT trying to be at all "political" or trying to stir up any diatribe at all here, honestly - the above just seems so simple, obvious, easy and straightforward to me.

AND I do NOT want to get into any sort of debate (vitriolic or otherwise) as to whether or not Covid jabs - and/or lockdown, and/or whatever else - are a good idea or not! PLEASE.


----------



## Tris (24 Feb 2021)

I think the level of organisation required will mean it is unlikely to happen. What that will mean for jobseekers when companies are looking at mandatory vaccination for new applicants remains to be seen.


----------



## Jameshow (24 Feb 2021)

We have manditory seatbelts for those traveling in cars which saves 100's of lives. 

No one says I'm not wearing one to a PC.... 

I cannot see why a vaccine passport cannot be introduced to save 1000's lives. 

If you don't want one then don't fly / go to pubs etc. 

Essential shops would be a another kettle of fish tbh. 

Cheers James


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

Jameshow said:


> We have manditory seatbelts for those traveling in cars which saves 100's of lives.
> 
> No one says I'm not wearing one to a PC....
> 
> ...



Actually seatbelts are not really mandatory. Classic cars are exempt for example, as are buses, trains and some other transport. In cars the law says you must wear one (exceptions above) but you are not prevented from travelling in a car if you don't wear one, you are fined if you are caught, the key point there being if you are caught. People with medical exemptions are allowed to travel without a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt is also not an invasive medical procedure.


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

I'm broadly in favour, and like @AES have my little yellow book (which was once couriered to me in East Africa, after I forgot it, and realised that whilst they had let me in, border control wouldn't let me out of the country I was in without it).



But, if we go down this route, I believe there *needs* to be:

A vaccination program already under way which is open to the entire population,
A mechanism for people who have legitimate need (new job requires it, visit unwell relative, visit loved one in care home, travel for business) to get priority access, without a requirement to pay.
A robust mechanism for someone's GP to give people a certificate stating that they're exempt due to a genuine health risk (say history of vaccine reactions); and legislation which makes it clear that this is an acceptable alternative to the passport.
If those conditions aren't in place, it will likely end up driving additional unfairness towards those who have already been hit the hardest by COVID; which would not be something I would support.

*If we do it, it has to be done right, or not at all.*



I don't however buy the "_it's people's right to choose_" argument as a justification for not implementing vaccine passports.

I was brought up knowing that both acts and omissions have consequences.

So I don't find it unreasonable that if someone exercises their right to choose not to get vaccinated, then they need to accept that this will consequentialy limit their access to certain privileges (like visiting private property, obtaining employment, or traveling internationally).


----------



## Snettymakes (24 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> I don't however buy the "_it's people's right to choose_" argument as a justification for not implementing vaccine passports.
> 
> I was brought up knowing that both acts and omissions have consequences.
> 
> So I don't find it unreasonable that if someone exercises their right to choose not to get vaccinated, then they need to accept that this will consequentialy limit their access to certain privileges (like visiting private property, obtaining employment, or traveling internationally).



 this


----------



## Lons (24 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Actually seatbelts are not really mandatory. Classic cars are exempt for example, as are buses, trains and some other transport. In cars the law says you must wear one (exceptions above) but you are not prevented from travelling in a car if you don't wear one, you are fined if you are caught, the key point there being if you are caught. People with medical exemptions are allowed to travel without a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt is also not an invasive medical procedure.


That's just a play on words, unless you have valid exemption it's mandatory that you wear seatbelts whilst travelling in any car that has them fitted, if a classic car has had them retrofitted then it's illegal not to wear them.
Not wearing seatbelts is not a valid choice and your statement (_the key point there being if you are caught_) might be fact but not something that should be suggested, it is breaking the law. It's illegal to steal, to hurt or kill people and a multitude of other actions and exactly the same statement can apply to those crimes, the fact there are consequences is irrelevant and while I'm sure you aren't deliberately encouraging anyone to break the law it's a somewhat stupid statement to make in the current topic of vaccines and certificates.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (24 Feb 2021)

A big NO to vaccine passports for domestic purposes.

administratively costly, possibly complex and open to abuse
if individuals have the good sense to get themselves vaccinated their risk is very low
those who have not been vaccinated must take personal responsibility for their own actions
by late summer there will be effective herd immunity due to vaccine rollout and natural immunity
For international travel there may be a requirement and a standard certificate should be available from GP surgeries at a modest cost - eg: £10-25.

If employers quite reasonably require staff or new recruits to provide proof of vaccination this can be provided by GP.


----------



## Lazurus (24 Feb 2021)

Could a simple stamp or similar be added to our normal passport?


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

Rather worrying to read some of the responses here. 

What else should we put on it then? Flu Jab? Hepatitis? HIV status? MRSA carrier? Staphylococcus carrier?


----------



## Geoff_S (24 Feb 2021)

I got given a credit card sized preprinted card with my name, vaccine type, batch number and date received, and a space to put the date for my second jab. I can just put that in my wallet.

Will that do?


----------



## Selwyn (24 Feb 2021)

I'd like to see the vulnerable all get a vaccine if they want.

The less vulnerable really shouldn't. We have immune systems so get them functioning. The vaccine may prevent other parts of our immune system acting optimally in due course. 

I'm not anti vax.


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Rather worrying to read some of the responses here.
> 
> What else should we put on it then? Flu Jab? Hepatitis? HIV status? MRSA carrier? Staphylococcus carrier?



What's so scary?

In any case I think you'll find the Hepatitises are already on the WHO ICVP along with Typhoid, Yellow Fever, Cholera, Polio, Smallpox (now defunct), Meningococcal Meningitis, etc.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> What's so scary?
> 
> In any case I think you'll find the Hepatitises are already on the WHO ICVP along with Typhoid, Yellow Fever, Cholera, Polio, Smallpox (now defunct), Meningococcal Meningitis, etc.



So you would be happy with being forced to prove your vaccination for the others too just so you can buy a pint in the pub?


----------



## Sandyn (24 Feb 2021)

Generally, I think they are no great benefit, very devisive and generally difficult to enforce. The rate at which the vaccination program is rolling out will mean they are unnecessary by the time anything secure and workable is introduced. You can be sure as soon as anything is introduced, you will be able to buy one on the internet for £20. The vaccinations are very effective, but not 100%, so there is always an element of risk with people with a passport. 
There is no easy way out of where we are. I prefer to manage my own risk and take responsibility for myself, for example, I can't see myself getting on any flights for a long time yet.

I would rather see a test which I can have which measures my immune response to the vaccine. If it was a good response, I would be happy to mix with others knowing I was reasonably protected and not passing on anything to anyone else. I would still take sensible precautions. 

I think I will be wearing a mask in winter/sanitizing when out in public from now on. I have had a flu/cold free winter.


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> So you would be happy with being forced to prove your vaccination for the others too just so you can buy a pint in the pub?



It really wouldn't bother me, it's not functionally any different to having to present Photo ID to get into some bars, or buy beer at the off-licence...

Which doesn't happen as frequently as it used to, but still often enough that it's an entirely normal part of life.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> It really wouldn't bother me, it's not functionally any different to having to present Photo ID to get into some bars, or buy beer at the off-licence...
> 
> Which doesn't happen as frequently as it used to, but still often enough that it's an entirely normal part of life.



Bit different to proving your age. You are revealing sensitive medical information about yourself which will almost certainly be recorded to track what you do.


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Bit different to proving your age. You are revealing sensitive medical information about yourself which will almost certainly be recorded to track what you do.


It's not actually sensitive though.

Also, I'm not under any misapprehension that I don't already live in a quasi surveillance state where if the authorities chose to do so they could identify me in public, track my movements, intercept my communications, or access tax, employment, financial or medical records without my explicit consent or even neccicarily knowing... 

That ship sailed a long time ago; and I'm fairly dull anyway, it's not like they'd discover anything interesting.


----------



## Snettymakes (24 Feb 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> by late summer there will be effective herd immunity due to vaccine rollout and natural immunity



*requires citation


----------



## Just4Fun (24 Feb 2021)

I recently came across a side issue to this which had not previously occured to me. Consider the case of a younger person who got vaccinated early on because they have an underlying condition. However, that underlying condition is a private medical matter that they only disclose to close family and friends. They certainly do not disclose it to their employer, possibly for fear that they will be discriminated against in some way. Now if their employer can check if & when they have been vaccinated it is going to raise questions in the employers' minds, even if they cannot legally ask about it. That I think is a legitimate reason for some people to be against vaccine checks.


----------



## marcros (24 Feb 2021)

Sandyn said:


> Generally, I think they are no great benefit, very devisive and generally difficult to enforce. The rate at which the vaccination program is rolling out will mean they are unnecessary by the time anything secure and workable is introduced. You can be sure as soon as anything is introduced, you will be able to buy one on the internet for £20. The vaccinations are very effective, but not 100%, so there is always an element of risk with people with a passport.
> There is no easy way out of where we are. I prefer to manage my own risk and take responsibility for myself, for example, I can't see myself getting on any flights for a long time yet.
> 
> I would rather see a test which I can have which measures my immune response to the vaccine. If it was a good response, I would be happy to mix with others knowing I was reasonably protected and not passing on anything to anyone else. I would still take sensible precautions.
> ...



You can't buy a yellow fever certificate off the internet. Not readily anyway, the dark web perhaps.


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> I recently came across a side issue to this which had not previously occured to me. Consider the case of a younger person who got vaccinated early on because they have an underlying condition. However, that underlying condition is a private medical matter that they only disclose to close family and friends. They certainly do not disclose it to their employer, possibly for fear that they will be discriminated against in some way. Now if their employer can check if & when they have been vaccinated it is going to raise questions in the employers' minds, even if they cannot legally ask about it. That I think is a legitimate reason for some people to be against vaccine checks.



There are existing processes to manage that, which should probably be being made obvious and available to employers who are unfamiliar with them now...

Because employers *will* start asking (if they aren't already) as it's clearly an advantage to them to have a vaccinated workforce.



But yeah, going back to the processes for managing this, I've spent my entire career in "High Hazard Industries", which means that every employer I've ever had, has required a fairly through medical assessment and physical.

But none of my employers have ever had direct access to information about my medical history, just a statement from an independent medical practitioner stating "Yes Jelly is fit to work in job [X]" or "Jelly is fit to work in job [X] with [y] specific limitations".



It shouldn't be hard to have an independent service (say the same service that runs background checks on applicants) check a register or documents independently of the final employer to come back with a "Yes/No" answer which hides any details like dates, or exempt status...

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if said commercial checking providers offered it as a free service to advertise their more general background checking services to a wider range of smaller companies.



*Edit:* Just recalled, I've had two employers who made it a contractual obligation to get and remain vaccinated for Hepatitis, and some other nasties...

The Occy Health Nurse came out periodically, set up a little vaccination clinic in a spare office and did everyone who was unvaccinated or due a booster.

Never any fuss! In fact one of the lads in Ops had the foresight to take his little Yellow WHO Booklet with him, having correctly identified it was a freebie that also covered him for holiday vaccinations.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

Just4Fun said:


> I recently came across a side issue to this which had not previously occured to me. Consider the case of a younger person who got vaccinated early on because they have an underlying condition. However, that underlying condition is a private medical matter that they only disclose to close family and friends. They certainly do not disclose it to their employer, possibly for fear that they will be discriminated against in some way. Now if their employer can check if & when they have been vaccinated it is going to raise questions in the employers' minds, even if they cannot legally ask about it. That I think is a legitimate reason for some people to be against vaccine checks.



One of many tricky situations it raises.


----------



## paulrbarnard (24 Feb 2021)

W


Rorschach said:


> So you would be happy with being forced to prove your vaccination for the others too just so you can buy a pint in the pub?


hy wouldn’t you? You have to provide proof your over 18 if asked.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> W
> 
> hy wouldn’t you? You have to provide proof your over 18 if asked.



Proving you are over 18 is not quite the same as revealing medical information is it? You don't have to undergo an invasive medical procedure to become 18 either do you?


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Proving you are over 18 is not quite the same as revealing medical information is it? You don't have to undergo an invasive medical procedure to become 18 either do you?



That's a false equivalence.

Vaccination status is not the same as revealing intimate details of a medical condition, or treatment...


----------



## beech1948 (24 Feb 2021)

I don't see that any secure medical info is being exposed by proving you had the jab. That is just hyper picky wording to make a point.

What worries me is the 20%+ who are refusing to have the jab. That is a large enough proportion of people to cause another huge infection with its many attendant deaths. Vaccine passports...hell YES !

I have come to believe that we should insist on vaccination for all and that those who still will not comply lose jobs, access to shops, cinema, football etc etc. Draconian I know but I have had 3 dead relatives, 2 more in hospital for more than 10 weeks. The cause being the uncaring deniers, the ignorant and the stupidly selfish who visited this disease upon my relatives. If required people should be forced to have the jab there can be no valid reason to refuse it.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> That's a false equivalence.
> 
> Vaccination status is not the same as revealing intimate details of a medical condition, or treatment...



Isn't it? Let's see how that goes.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

beech1948 said:


> I don't see that any secure medical info is being exposed by proving you had the jab. That is just hyper picky wording to make a point.
> 
> What worries me is the 20%+ who are refusing to have the jab. That is a large enough proportion of people to cause another huge infection with its many attendant deaths. Vaccine passports...hell YES !
> 
> I have come to believe that we should insist on vaccination for all and that those who still will not comply lose jobs, access to shops, cinema, football etc etc. Draconian I know but I have had 3 dead relatives, 2 more in hospital for more than 10 weeks. The cause being the uncaring deniers, the ignorant and the stupidly selfish who visited this disease upon my relatives. If required people should be forced to have the jab there can be no valid reason to refuse it.



Jeez! Anything else you would like to force people to do? I am glad we are not personally acquainted.


----------



## Sandyn (24 Feb 2021)

marcros said:


> You can't buy a yellow fever certificate off the internet. Not readily anyway, the dark web perhaps.


lol, so can you or can't you?? What about this, a bargain at £10!! then fill it in yourself? Anyone who faked a yellow fever certificate deserves to catch it!
I know what you mean, but if there was a demand for vaccination passports to travel for holidays, for example, there would be a market. The faster we get everyone vaccinated, the better.


----------



## AES (24 Feb 2021)

Well, I WAS worried when I put my two-penn'orth into this. Seems I was right to worry. No longer following this thread, have fun (some of you ARE complete prix IMO)!


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Sandyn said:


> Generally, I think they are no great benefit, very devisive and generally difficult to enforce. The rate at which the vaccination program is rolling out will mean they are unnecessary by the time anything secure and workable is introduced.


Whilst I see more conceptual merit than you do, it would be blind of me to argue the idea is not divisive, and fully recognise it could only be as beneficial as the level of enforcement, which would vary wildly.

However, I think you may have picked on the single biggest weakness of the concept of internal vaccine passports with your next point...

We weren't planning for them, and are already vaccinating people at a rate which is just astonishingly fast, and will spend so long playing catch-up to that, that there's a reasonable chance that before we actually work the kinks out in the system, we will achieve sufficient levels of herd immunity for their relevance to fade away.

Some of that depends on rate of mutation, and how long the protective effects of the vaccines last; whilst how complex a system the government devises (simpler is more likely to work) is the other factor, but it's quite plausible for it to become an irrelevant idea before it can be put into practice.





Sandyn said:


> I would rather see a test which I can have which measures my immune response to the vaccine. If it was a good response, I would be happy to mix with others knowing I was reasonably protected and not passing on anything to anyone else. I would still take sensible precautions.



That would be a very, very useful thing indeed, and could be achieved using the same basic technology which is used to make the "Lateral Flow Device" testing kits work...

Now you've said that I'm going to ask one of my customers (who makes LFD tests) if that's something they're considering or working on when I'm back in next week.






beech1948 said:


> If required people should be forced to have the jab there can be no valid reason to refuse it.



Had you asked me a couple of years ago, I would have been cautiously in favour of compulsory vaccination.

However, with the growth in the anti-vax movement, the relationship between that movement and certain actors on the fringes of our increasingly febrile political climate, and as polarised a media landscape where people do feel entitled to their own "Facts" to suit their opinions...

I would be deeply concerned that such an approach would become an own goal, which actually fans the flames of anti-vax sentiments, and results in it becoming a permanent political issue, where science or objective truth has no bearing.



Providing people with a choice, knowing one choice would require them to accept some personal inconvenience and social opprobrium; is much more likely to motivate them to get vaccinated, even if they moan about feeling "forced into it" into the bargain, which fits with what you're initially suggesting:



beech1948 said:


> I have come to believe that we should insist on vaccination for all and that those who still will not comply lose jobs, access to shops, cinema, football etc.



Which is where I got to with my earlier post... Having been raised to understand that actions have consequences; it seems like reduced access to public places where there's a high risk of viral spread, is an entirely reasonable consequence of voluntarily choosing not to get a vaccination.

I think that it will most likely be incumbent on employers requiring staff to be vaccinated to provide a satisfactory argument that it is "a proportionate requirement to achieve a legitimate aim", and it is likely that most but not all employers who seek to do so will be able to justify that.


In both cases I do think it's important that we recognise that there are a (very) small number of people who cannot receive the vaccine on either a temporary or permanent basis because of medical reasons, where it would be the "Just" thing to allow them to have access to public spaces (as it is not their choice), but may not be appropriate to exempt them in a workplace depending on the reason that an employer has for requiring vaccination.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (24 Feb 2021)

So the moral argument is that you really shouldn't force someone to undergo any medical treatment . All medical procedures should be undertaken only with the _informed concent_ of the individual. The internet was flooded with the Nuremberg Code a while ago, which sets all this out. It's called the Nuremberg Code because of Dr Mengele and friends, who did some fairly unpleasant things to a large number of people _without_ their concent. We don't want to be lumped in with Dr Mengele, do we?

Now the issue is whether using coercion to force people to vaccinate against their will is a breach of their human rights, or even a crime against humanity, or not. Saying that you don't need to be vaccinated, but without a certificate you can't work, shop, mix with others or generally be a human being is probably coercing them to be vaccinated. Probably. The legal people will sort it out. Already there are fact checking sites saying that vaccination doesn't breach the code (eg Principles in the Nuremberg Code are compatible with vaccination) so the battle lines are drawn and the propaganda mills are churning. Yet another way to get groups of people at each others throats.

My thoughts on this are that I don't want to force someone to take what is in effect an experimental vaccine (yes, I know all the arguments about how it isn't, but I'm not convinced by them). By all means go for it if you _want_ to, but not if you don't. If you would rather wait a few years to see if there are any suprise side-effects, I understand.

The travel thing is different - you elect to go abroad, and the foreign country can insist on whatever weird and random rules it likes, such as wearing a headscarf or not driving if you are female, or insisting that all visitors have are particular vaccination before arriving. You dont have to visit, but if you choose to, then you follow the rules. Interestingly, I am expecting to be told that I must have proof of Covid19 vaccine in order to deal with tourists, which would be a breach of my rights, but not of the tourists', probably.


----------



## Sandyn (24 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> Now you've said that I'm going to ask one of my customers (who makes LFD tests) if that's something they're considering or working on when I'm back in next week.


any chance of some commission? if they do.  I'm sure I heard in the early days of the vaccine, that for 10%. it would be completely ineffective. Not sure if that is still the case, but that has always been a concern of mine. I am vaccinated, but no idea how well I am protected.


----------



## powertools (24 Feb 2021)

As far as I am concerned having the vax is a choice but if someone decides not to have it then they will need to accept that choice will exclude them from many things.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

powertools said:


> As far as I am concerned having the vax is a choice but if someone decides not to have it then they will need to accept that choice will exclude them from many things.



But is it then a choice? Saying to someone, you don't have to have it, but if you don't you are cut off from society doesn't really make it a choice does it?


----------



## paulrbarnard (24 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Proving you are over 18 is not quite the same as revealing medical information is it? You don't have to undergo an invasive medical procedure to become 18 either do you?


You try telling that to the majority of female above that age...


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

@Jelly once again while we do agree entirely, you make some good points.

I of course do not want them, but I can foresee them being imposed however as you and others have said by the time the slow, wasteful (20 billion track and trace fiasco) bureaucracy actually gets a workable system going, it won't even be needed as the vast majority will already be vaccinated. 
I think even floating the idea will cause big arguments and divisions in the country and is totally unnecessary.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Feb 2021)

paulrbarnard said:


> You try telling that to the majority of female above that age...



Good one!


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Sandyn said:


> any chance of some commission? if they do.  I'm sure I heard in the early days of the vaccine, that for 10%. it would be completely ineffective. Not sure if that is still the case, but that has always been a concern of mine. I am vaccinated, but no idea how well I am protected.


Chance would be a fine thing!

I will certainly share their info if they have a suitable product available though.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (24 Feb 2021)

Another vaccine morality question: 


To quote Monty Python: "It makes you think, doesn't it?"


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Another vaccine morality question:
> 
> 
> To quote Monty Python: "It makes you think, doesn't it?"




Not really, no.

The vast majority of vaccines are given to children, the vast majority of technical experts in vaccination topics are from a pediatrics background, and almost all vaccines have been tested by clinical trials in children.

The process is to do animal trials, then trials in healthy adult volunteers to confirm the safety of a treatment, then move to seperate adult and pediatric trials to verify efficacy because you can't assume the two groups will respond exactly the same in terms of outcomes, and understanding the difference allows us to give better treatment.


----------



## Jelly (24 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @Jelly once again while we do agree entirely, you make some good points.
> 
> I of course do not want them, but I can foresee them being imposed however as you and others have said by the time the slow, wasteful (20 billion track and trace fiasco) bureaucracy actually gets a workable system going, it won't even be needed as the vast majority will already be vaccinated.
> I think even floating the idea will cause big arguments and divisions in the country and is totally unnecessary.



I think it's inevitable that like workplace testing, workplace vaccination requirements will be a thing... As I pointed out it's already normal for workers in the Water, Waste, Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare sectors.

That means we need to do something to make that straightforward, utilising the existing frameworks around how occupational health is dealt with in a HR setting, and the "Carte Jaune" or an equivalent to document would likely be sufficient for that purpose...

It's implementation across the whole of society for venues, shops etc. which is liable to become problematic.


----------



## Lons (24 Feb 2021)

Employer says, "to work in my company you need to provide proof of vaccination, that is part of our terms and conditions", prospective employee has the right to choose and if he decides not to be vaccinated the offer is withdrawn because he doesn't meet the required criteria and he goes elsewhere. No-one forces him or her to do the job, he has made the choice.
There is another side to this as the employer has a legal responsibility to protect his employees and provide safe working conditions by employing non vaccinated people he is arguably risking prosecution if one of his vaccinated staff members catches the virus and becomes seriously ill because of it.
In a blame society with no win no fee lawyers tell me that can't happen and I won't believe you.

There are many jobs where it is mandatory to provide detailed information, the very people who are on the front line of this pandemic are a case in point and would anyone here want their children to be looked after by anyone who hasn't been thoroughly vetted and cleared to work with juveniles? A bit different but still relevant and can be compared.

Some people seem to spend a lot of their time hiding away and furtively looking over their shoulders, you can spot them by the nervous twitch.


----------



## Dave Moore (25 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Would be interested to hear people's views on this, especially interested to see if the views align with other views on C19/Lockdown/Vaccination etc.
> 
> So are you pro or against? Why?


Before we are finished everybody will have a chip in their wrist. They are already being used for opening doors in some buildings. Cashless society (on the way) , simple flash your wrist and pay for it. Waving to your friends in Tesco might buy you a full aisle of goods though. Everything will end up on this chip. Vaccine passport, passport, driving licence, all your health records, the list goes on. I think this will happen quicker than most people realise but it’s going to happen. If you don’t have the gene therapy( it’s not a vaccine) , you will be made a social leper. God help those that can’t have the vaccine due to medical reasons, no problem as long as they ring a bell to warn you they are coming your way.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> Not really, no.


I quite understand that all vaccines must be tested, and tested on children, but how does a six years old give informed consent? How does any parent offer up their child for medical experimentation? Some obviously do, for the betterment of humanity. A brave choice, especially as the risk is non-zero. I stand by my statement that it is a question of morality. Everyone gets to make their own choice as to where the moral high ground lies. However, there is a lot of pressure here to force people into medical procedures for the benefit of everyone else. In other words, the ends justify the means.

Would enforced vaccination of the entire population be a good thing for the entire population? Probably. Are you comfortable with forcing people to be vaccinated against their will (and coercion is still force)? Just because force gives the right solution in this case, it is still force. One of my favourite quotes is "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent ".

Do you really want to live in a world where the government (famous for their competence, honesty and upright morality) gain the right to force medical procedures without consent? Once gained, they will never give it up. A slippery slope, which
could lead anywhere - perhaps even to forced euthanasia of those deemed "surplus to requirements"? Who knows where the future will lead.

I would prefer to live in a world where people are free to act as they choose, because then no one is dictating to me how I must act. Simple, straightforward self interest. You want someone to take a vaccine? Convince them that it is a good idea, and they will be fully on board. Force them and they will hate you forever, and there may well be consequences.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

Lons said:


> Employer says, "to work in my company you need to provide proof of vaccination, that is part of our terms and conditions", prospective employee has the right to choose and if he decides not to be vaccinated the offer is withdrawn because he doesn't meet the required criteria and he goes elsewhere. No-one forces him or her to do the job, he has made the choice.
> There is another side to this as the employer has a legal responsibility to protect his employees and provide safe working conditions by employing non vaccinated people he is arguably risking prosecution if one of his vaccinated staff members catches the virus and becomes seriously ill because of it.
> In a blame society with no win no fee lawyers tell me that can't happen and I won't believe you.
> 
> ...



For certain jobs I can understand that, just like I understand you need certain checks for working with kids etc (I have been checked for that in the past). Employers are going to have a hard time bringing in mandatory vaccination though if it was never on their contracts before now. They will have to justify to a court why they never imposed it for the myriad of infectious diseases that are far more deadly than C19, but now want to impose it for a disease that will have high herd immunity and very low mortality. I think that might be a tough call and it only takes one case of discrimination to be successful and the whole system will fall apart. Let's face it, proving discrimination is very easy these days.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

Worth considering as well is whether any form of coercion will actually decrease the numbers taking up the vaccine.

I have said before I am undecided whether I will take it or not, I'd like to wait and see a bit longer before making my decision, we are only a couple of months into this after all. 
If the vaccine were made mandatory I would absolutely refuse to take it on principle, no matter how safe/effective it might be, and the same goes if there are extreme coercion tactics used. I think it would be a massive own goal for the government to use these kinds of tactics because I know for certain I won't be alone in refusing to have anything that is made mandatory/coercive. Lower up take could then have a detrimental effect on efficacy as whole.
A study published today showed that 95%+ of the population were willing to be vaccinated, more than 10% greater than the government were expecting (and based their modelling on). I think they should be grateful for that kind of up take and not shoot themselves in the foot with authoritarian behaviour.

Imagine as well those key workers such as supermarket staff, forced to work for a year under pandemic conditions, no priority status for vaccination and suddenly being told it's not safe to go into your own place of work unless you are forcibly vaccinated. Not going to go down well is it? There is already going to be another age divide argument as the vaccinated elderly are given special allowance for holidays abroad meanwhile the young who have sacrificed so much to keep those elderly people safe are either barred from travel or simply can't afford it due to economic hardship.


----------



## Droogs (25 Feb 2021)

Perhaps from the lessons learned of this pandemic, It may become mandatory to be vaccinated against all diseases for which we have a vaccine and you will not be allowed to apply for work or even leave the country without an up to date code on the bio-metric chip in your nice new blue/black passport. Which will be a mandatory item to be on your person at all times, so an ID card you will pay for the privillage of having to carry and in order to access any state welfare you will need this. Welcome to life under the  in the Disunited kingdom of Gattacca


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> Perhaps from the lessons learned of this pandemic, It may become mandatory to be vaccinated against all diseases for which we have a vaccine and you will not be allowed to apply for work or even leave the country without an up to date code on the bio-metric chip in your nice new blue/black passport. Which will be a mandatory item to be on your person at all times, so an ID card you will pay for the privillage of having to carry and in order to access any state welfare you will need this. Welcome to life under the  in the Disunited kingdom of Gattacca



Woah, wait, are we going to agree on something? Are are you just being sarcastic?


----------



## Droogs (25 Feb 2021)

Both, I still feel if we have a vaccine then take it but also no one should be forced to do so.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> Both, I still feel if we have a vaccine then take it but also no one should be forced to do so.



Well raise a glass, I'll join you on the picket!


----------



## Anthraquinone (25 Feb 2021)

Compulsory vaccination would not be new in the UK it has been done before and with a vaccine that had virtually no testing in terms that we would understand.

If people refuse vaccination for some twisted belief and potentially put others at risk then they should not be upset if they have problems getting a job or leaving the country etc etc. 

Finally why do people get thier knickers in a twist about their medical history being sacrosanct. I have never understood that anymore than keeping their salaries secret neither make sense for the vast majority of the population.


----------



## FatmanG (25 Feb 2021)

beech1948 said:


> I don't see that any secure medical info is being exposed by proving you had the jab. That is just hyper picky wording to make a point.
> 
> What worries me is the 20%+ who are refusing to have the jab. That is a large enough proportion of people to cause another huge infection with its many attendant deaths. Vaccine passports...hell YES !
> 
> I have come to believe that we should insist on vaccination for all and that those who still will not comply lose jobs, access to shops, cinema, football etc etc. Draconian I know but I have had 3 dead relatives, 2 more in hospital for more than 10 weeks. The cause being the uncaring deniers, the ignorant and the stupidly selfish who visited this disease upon my relatives. If required people should be forced to have the jab there can be no valid reason to refuse it.


I have come to believe that anyone related to any person who has been seen by the NHS for anything covid related should lose jobs,cinema, football etc etc. Draconian I know but I have relatives who cannot see a doctor,get surgery also grandparents that cannot see their children for nearly 12 months. The cause being these uncaring, ignorant and stupidly selfish people have overwhelmed the NHS put the medical professionals and their families at risk and crushed normal society for simply breathing oxygen into their lungs.

Your last and my 1st paragraphs are totally ridiculous and by the way forced vaccination is a human right violation. Shaping society to make it impossible to survive without being vaccinated is even worse. History is littered with medical mistakes done in the name of progress. Pregnant women given medication that left their babies deformed, haemophiliac blood transfusions infecting them with HIV the list is endless.


----------



## Snettymakes (25 Feb 2021)

A general problem I have with most political conversations, is when people say "we shouldn't do A because XYZ may happen". As I rarely see anybody providing solutions for XYZ, it leads me to believe that XYZ have been brought up to support the argument against A, rather than actually forming the basis of their belief that we shouldn't do A.

Most things have side effects, solve the side effects, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

Snettymakes said:


> A general problem I have with most political conversations, is when people say "we shouldn't do A because XYZ may happen". As I rarely see anybody providing solutions for XYZ, it leads me to believe that XYZ have been brought up to support the argument against A, rather than actually forming the basis of their belief that we shouldn't do A.
> 
> Most things have side effects, solve the side effects, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.



How do you solve the side effects of a vaccine passport then? Given that the side effects are discrimination and the further erosion of our civil liberties?


----------



## MikeJhn (25 Feb 2021)

From the Spectator this morning:


Care UK, one of the UK’s largest care home providers, has instituted a ‘no jab, no job’ policy.


----------



## gregmcateer (25 Feb 2021)

AES said:


> AND I do NOT want to get into any sort of debate (vitriolic or otherwise) as to whether or not Covid jabs - and/or lockdown, and/or whatever else - are a good idea or not! PLEASE.



Aaaaannnd, a pig just flew by...


----------



## Snettymakes (25 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> How do you solve the side effects of a vaccine passport then? Given that the side effects are discrimination and the further erosion of our civil liberties?



How indeed. I'm glad that you're asking the question, that's a good starting point.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

Snettymakes said:


> How indeed. I'm glad that you're asking the question, that's a good starting point.



But I don't need to solve the side effects, I don't want vaccine passports in the first place, you do. lol 

That's why I am asking you the question.


----------



## Jonm (25 Feb 2021)

There are real practical difficulties. How is it going to be made difficult to forge, photo, biometrics etc. How would it be implemented, how would it be enforced, how long to set up and how much would it cost. There is no point in setting up a half baked system which sounds good but in practice is easy to get round, inconveniences most of us and costs us a fortune for no real benefit.

Take London Underground, up to five million passenger journeys a day, at peak times, there are more than 543 trains. How do you check five million people on one day have a valid vaccination certificate. What about visitors from abroad, ok may be checked on entry but what happens when they try to get on a bus or go to a restaurant, what document do they produce.

I think one big problem is the lack of trust in authority. We have a prime minister who was sacked for lying as a journalist, sacked for lying as a front bench spokesman and has consistently lied to us like telling Northern Ireland businesses they can put customs declarations forms “in the bin” because there will be “no barriers of any kind” to trade crossing the Irish Sea. No wonder people believe what they read from their peers on social media rather than trust authority.

I think we have to keep up with trying to persuade particularly those who are vulnerable to have the vaccine. Perhaps this should also be through social media. Hopefully when those who are reluctant see people who have had the vaccine walking about whilst others who have refused the vaccine are ill or dying then some common sense will kick in.


----------



## Fidget (25 Feb 2021)

Some people in society believe they have rights and no obligations


----------



## Jonm (25 Feb 2021)

Selwyn said:


> I'd like to see the vulnerable all get a vaccine if they want.
> 
> The less vulnerable really shouldn't. We have immune systems so get them functioning. The vaccine may prevent other parts of our immune system acting optimally in due course.
> 
> I'm not anti vax.


That was my reaction to the flu jab, do not have it and build up my resistance. Now I am older I have the flu jab. I think Covid at present is different, large numbers of vaccinated people mixing with large numbers of unvaccinated people give mutations which get round the vaccine the opportunity to thrive. We do not want to go through this again because of a mutation.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

You bring up some good points there @Jonm especially regarding transport. Being a frequent visitor to London it would be impossible to deal with on the underground even at off-peak times.

I think hospitality might try and force the issue but I can't see it lasting, can they afford the loss in trade of turning away those who refuse to provide proof? If the certificate is digital, what do you do about those who refuse to have a smart phone? Businesses certainly can't afford to turn away the "grey pound" as it's known. If it's paper, how easy is it to forge? Probably very easy.

And of course the whole system falls apart once one pub chain for example decides you don't need a certificate, because then the whole system looks pointless.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Feb 2021)

A discussion about this a day or two ago on Radio 4 revolved entirely around ideas for a Covid passport (domestic version) being "an app".

Fine - but what provision for those who do not own a mobile phone?

(Personally, I'm not in favour of any sort of vaccine passport for domestic use. I suspect that infection rates are dropping fast enough, and vaccination proceeding quickly enough, to make them unnecessary by the time pubs etc are scheduled to reopen. I also don't like the idea of jumped-up jobsworths demanding to "see your papers".)


----------



## Jonzjob (25 Feb 2021)

Is it even a vaccine?









Elon Musk Buys Twitter for $44 Billion


April 25, 2022, Twitter accepted Elon Musk's buyout. Afterward, it will become a privately held company. What will change under Musk's leadership?




articles.mercola.com





It seems that it doesn't stop you getting, just lessens the effects and you can still be a carrier. I'm sure that if a door handle can carry it then anything/body can.


----------



## Snettymakes (25 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> But I don't need to solve the side effects, I don't want vaccine passports in the first place, you do. lol
> 
> That's why I am asking you the question.



Nice of you to bring up another problem I have with most political conversations. Distilling somebody's views down to "are you for or against", and "if you disagree with X then you clearly are against" is a nonsense that ends up with polarising views, and the horrific state of politics that we find ourselves in.

You appear to have distilled the two replies I have so far given, down to "I want vaccine passports". Whilst I may have views on particular arguments, I do not have anywhere sufficient knowledge or experience to be able to give a definitive opinion.

I just wish people would discuss merits with an open mind. Most don't.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

Snettymakes said:


> Nice of you to bring up another problem I have with most political conversations. Distilling somebody's views down to "are you for or against", and "if you disagree with X then you clearly are against" is a nonsense that ends up with polarising views, and the horrific state of politics that we find ourselves in.
> 
> You appear to have distilled the two replies I have so far given, down to "I want vaccine passports". Whilst I may have views on particular arguments, I do not have anywhere sufficient knowledge or experience to be able to give a definitive opinion.
> 
> I just wish people would discuss merits with an open mind. Most don't.



My apologies, I have just looked back and you are right you didn't state a definitive opinion, not quite sure why I thought you did, might have been confusing you with someone else, sorry about that.


----------



## powertools (25 Feb 2021)

Fidget said:


> Some people in society believe they have rights and no obligations



That is exactly the point. If you are part of a society you need to accept that there are things you need to do that you may not want to do if you want to be part of that society and gain the advantages from it.


----------



## Rorschach (25 Feb 2021)

powertools said:


> That is exactly the point. If you are part of a society you need to accept that there are things you need to do that you may not want to do if you want to be part of that society and gain the advantages from it.



That's a fair point of course. The question really is where do the obligations stop? Is having a forced (or coerced) medical procedure a reasonable step to take? Is that as acceptable as paying taxes for example?

I have sat on trains next to some really dirty and smelly people, should they be obliged to take a shower and wash their clothes? If they say no should we forcibly wash them or prevent them accessing the places we all take for granted like supermarkets? I see people who use the toilets and don't wash their hands, should we force them to do that? Should we make them provide a certificate of clean hands to go into a shop? Arguably not washing your hands after using the toilet is a greater health hazard than C19 will be very soon.
It's a complicated matter isn't it.


----------



## Jonm (25 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> That's a fair point of course. The question really is where do the obligations stop? Is having a forced (or coerced) medical procedure a reasonable step to take? Is that as acceptable as paying taxes for example?
> 
> I have sat on trains next to some really dirty and smelly people, should they be obliged to take a shower and wash their clothes? If they say no should we forcibly wash them or prevent them accessing the places we all take for granted like supermarkets? I see people who use the toilets and don't wash their hands, should we force them to do that? Should we make them provide a certificate of clean hands to go into a shop? Arguably not washing your hands after using the toilet is a greater health hazard than C19 will be very soon.
> It's a complicated matter isn't it.


As one of my teachers said many years ago “Robinson Crusoe was free until Man Friday arrived”.


----------



## Droogs (25 Feb 2021)

Just opened a letter from NHS Scotland and the Scottish Gov. Telling me I can't go and vote in the election, I have to get a postal vote instead. Bleeding faff


----------



## Robbo60 (26 Feb 2021)

got mine Saturday. Second one 16th May before travel ban lifted on 17th - hopefully. On a plane on 30th May for four weeks in the sun - If they let us in??


----------



## Ozi (26 Feb 2021)

Selwyn said:


> I'd like to see the vulnerable all get a vaccine if they want.
> 
> The less vulnerable really shouldn't. We have immune systems so get them functioning. The vaccine may prevent other parts of our immune system acting optimally in due course.
> 
> I'm not anti vax.


And the fastest way to activate your immune system.....Vaccinate 
If you can show how that prevents any additional immune response your well on the way to a Noble prize.


----------



## Blackswanwood (26 Feb 2021)

While I would be content to carry one I very much doubt other than for international travel it will happen. It’s yet another COVID topic that very much divides opinion and when it comes to it I expect it will get hoofed into the long grass.

A silver lining on the COVID story for me this week has been talking with some of the guys in my area of the business who we set up to support the lonely and vulnerable in April last year by giving them an hour each week to call them for a chat. Typically these are 18 - 24 year olds calling pensioners ... their concern was that we stop the initiative when things get back to normal as they enjoy it as much as those they call do.


----------



## Rorschach (26 Feb 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> While I would be content to carry one I very much doubt other than for international travel it will happen. It’s yet another COVID topic that very much divides opinion and when it comes to it I expect it will get hoofed into the long grass.
> 
> A silver lining on the COVID story for me this week has been talking with some of the guys in my area of the business who we set up to support the lonely and vulnerable in April last year by giving them an hour each week to call them for a chat. Typically these are 18 - 24 year olds calling pensioners ... their concern was that we stop the initiative when things get back to normal as they enjoy it as much as those they call do.



That's a great thing to do. Maybe instead of just the calling you could up it a notch and set aside time to visit the pensioners for a cup of tea, that would be even better than a call.


----------



## FatmanG (26 Feb 2021)

powertools said:


> That is exactly the point. If you are part of a society you need to accept that there are things you need to do that you may not want to do if you want to be part of that society and gain the advantages from it.


Just out of interest how do you expect people to opt out of society? We are a nation of laws that respect human rights, the Nuremberg code was established after the Holocaust/ww2 for a reason. Once you let government start deciding what must go into your body eventually something nefarious will happen. History is littered with countless examples. Being merely born makes you part of society and until society and not govt by dictat change the rules then they must remain. We are not China


----------



## MikeJhn (26 Feb 2021)

FatmanG said:


> We are not China


But is that not where the whole thing started?


----------



## Droogs (26 Feb 2021)

It is quite simple. We have a part vaccine (stops it being bad)/vaccine (stops you getting it) for disease X, All are advised to take it as disease X will only be treated by NHS if person presents with symptoms having had part vaccine or it will not be treated at all if a full vaccine is used. That way you are not forced to have one and the fallout is at your own risk.


----------



## Rorschach (26 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> It is quite simple. We have a part vaccine (stops it being bad)/vaccine (stops you getting it) for disease X, All are advised to take it as disease X will only be treated by NHS if person presents with symptoms having had part vaccine or it will not be treated at all if a full vaccine is used. That way you are not forced to have one and the fallout is at your own risk.



Ok, should we also not treat woodworkers who chop of their fingers using a bandsaw? You know you were not forced to do woodwork so the fallout is your own risk. 
Also fat people, we shouldn't treat them for almost anything, diabetes, heart disease, stroke. They weren't forced to get fat so the fallout is their own risk.


----------



## Droogs (26 Feb 2021)

If you decide to not bother with the preventitive steps then you should be willing to suffer the consequences of your actions, Is that not the core tennet of the Qanon brigade both on here and elsewhere? And seeing as they would be the ones who would fall into the catagory of no treatment then I don't see a problem. Let them live or die by their philosophy 

Re the fingers @Rorschach yes we should treat them as it will have been an accident not a deliberate choice

Re fat people and problems, if they are obese due to gluttony, greed and laziness rather than due to health or accidental circumstance then treat them and make them pay for it. 

If something happens outwith your control and is not the result of your own deliberate actions then yes get the full benefits of society, however if they are due to you being a cockwombling qanon bacofoil hat wearing tub thumper then, no


----------



## doctor Bob (26 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Also fat people, we shouldn't treat them for almost anything, diabetes, heart disease, stroke. They weren't forced to get fat so the fallout is their own risk.



You can't call people fat anymore.


----------



## Rorschach (26 Feb 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> You can't call people fat anymore.



No you are right, the correct term is morbidly obese.

On a worrying side note, a friend of the family was very excited to tell us a couple of weeks ago that he was getting his jab that week, he is only 28 so we asked why was he getting it so early as his job doesn't fall into a care/medical category. He proudly said "My Doctor got me pushed up the line because I am clinically vulnerable due to my weight".


----------



## Droogs (26 Feb 2021)

@Rorschach , no need for a wow as you must surely agree, if in the face of all evidence and advise, you decide to deliberately live a lifestyle that goes against it all then you must be expected to pay for it when it all goes wrong. Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean they should get away with doing stupid things without consequence


----------



## Rorschach (26 Feb 2021)

Droogs said:


> @Rorschach , no need for a wow as you must surely agree, if in the face of all evidence and advise, you decide to deliberately live a lifestyle that goes against it all then you must be expected to pay for it when it all goes wrong. Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean they should get away with doing stupid things without consequence



Maybe that's a debate to be had, but we don't operate that system currently for smoking, drinking, eating, woodworking, extreme sports, dangerous driving, drug taking. All of these things are risky and we all know the risks but still people do them and we still treat them when things go wrong. Why should C19 be any different?


----------



## alanpo68 (26 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Ok, should we also not treat woodworkers who chop of their fingers using a bandsaw? You know you were not forced to do woodwork so the fallout is your own risk.
> Also fat people, we shouldn't treat them for almost anything, diabetes, heart disease, stroke. They weren't forced to get fat so the fallout is their own risk.




All of those examples are about the risk to the individual. Not having the vaccine is more akin to driving at 120 MPH on the motorway. It is not just your life you are prepared to risk but everyone around you. You might feel confident of your ability to drive at that speed and are prepared to risk your life. However, for the greater good sometimes society has to step in and protect those around you.


----------



## alanpo68 (26 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Maybe that's a debate to be had, but we don't operate that system currently for smoking, drinking, eating, woodworking, extreme sports, dangerous driving, drug taking. All of these things are risky and we all know the risks but still people do them and we still treat them when things go wrong. Why should C19 be any different?


We operate similarly in regard to smoking, that is why it is banned in certain surroundings. As for dangerous driving, people have their licence taken away or even their liberty taken away.


----------



## Droogs (26 Feb 2021)

Catching it is not a deliberate act, especially if one has had a the current minimizing vaccines. However catching it as a result of refusing the vaccine is the consequence of a deliberate act. So why should we waste resources on a cockwomble?


----------



## Lons (26 Feb 2021)

doctor Bob said:


> You can't call people fat anymore.


Is it still ok to call someone thin or is that not PC now?


----------



## Droogs (26 Feb 2021)

Lons said:


> Is it still ok to call someone thin or is that not PC now?


EEEks no, that would imply the person next to them is fat


----------



## thetyreman (26 Feb 2021)

I thought people were fat here until I went to the USA


----------



## deema (26 Feb 2021)

A lot if interesting perspectives. The CV19 will like flu mutate and will require subsequent booster jabs to maintain a level of resilience. There are number of aspects to consider. Firstly until the world is full vaccinated, the number of mutations will not be curbed, and that is never going to happen due to political, cultural and economic reasons. So we are faced with a world were CV19 will mutate and where further pandemics will occur regardless of immunisation.
The biggest driver on what to do is economic and political. Politically, not having hospital beds for sick people isn’t a great vote winner. Ethically people dying for lack of treatment we find deplorable in the UK, other countries where you have to pay for your medical treatment have taken a different prospective. So, morally we all should feel an obligation to help reduce the pressure in hospitals. Economically, lock downs is costing the country billions, and at some point will not be sustainable. the borrowings will have to be repaid by future generations as well as ours. The level of debt we pass on is down to our actions of today. Again morally we should feel burdening society with debt is a poor choice to make.
To do certain things today you are required to take certain actions, give up certain liberties. From a simply driving licence, to passport it is all mandatory to give away personal details and make choices. Life and medical insurance whether it’s for a mortgage or to travel all require very specific details. To visit certain countries you must have been vaccinated against certain diseases. However, the question is whether CV19 is sufficiently dangerous to require us to give up liberties the for good of society. That’s a decision we all have to come to terms with, and the majority clearly recognise that being vaccinated is the right choice.
As an aside, HIV was originally proposed as a notifiable disease, political pressure in the UK changed this and it could be argued that millions have died / had their lives adversely affected as a consequence of the liberty of this decision. In certain countries it still remains a notifiable illness.
Mist people are nit aware what diseases in the UK are by law notifiable. As I understand it, the government can restrict your movement if you have a notifiable disease and endanger others.


----------



## Just4Fun (26 Feb 2021)

deema said:


> The CV19 is no. 19 because it’s the 19th found!


No, it is because it was first seen in 2019.


----------



## deema (26 Feb 2021)

I have found the Covid 19 in the UK has been added as a notifiable disease.


----------



## Just4Fun (26 Feb 2021)




----------



## FatmanG (26 Feb 2021)

Some interesting replies but none dealing with HUMAN RIGHTS and NUREMBERG CODE, the mandate ends there friends whether you believe this virus is the beubonic plague stemming from a bat cave in China or that its a USA NIH (tony fauci) financed gain of function experiment that leaked out of a French built PLA bio weapons lab it doesn't matter. The Nuremberg Code is there to give a human being the choice what goes into their body. You may disagree with that choice but once you take away that choice you no longer have control someone else does and that someone may end up like Hitler or Pol Pot. I'm certain that not all Germans were Nazi's etc you know the rest. History is littered with lunatics and useful idiots.


----------



## sploo (26 Feb 2021)

Jonzjob said:


> Is it even a vaccine?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is pretty much the definition of a vaccine; it's a product used to train your immune system against a particular virus; such that you'll produce antibodies that can defend against the virus, should you come into contact with it at some future point. It will not (and cannot) give you 100% certainty that you will not catch, or spread, the virus.

However, it means that a (hopefully decent) percentage of those vaccinated with either develop no symptoms, or have greatly lessened symptoms; something which is enough to save many lives (both in the directly infected, and due to the reduction of transmission).


----------



## sploo (26 Feb 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> Another vaccine morality question:
> 
> 
> To quote Monty Python: "It makes you think, doesn't it?"



As the husband of a pediatric doctor (who carries out medical research) I can tell you that medical ethics for trials are exceptionally onerous and strict. Ethics requirements on trials involving minors are even more rigorous.

The question of the ability to give informed consent is treated very seriously; though even for adult subjects you are highly unlikely to get ethical approval for any trial that it considered to have too high a risk of doing harm (you can ask adult patients to undergo treatment that might create discomfort, but it's _really_ hard to get ethical approval even for that).

Point being; the bar set for a vaccine study in kids will be ludicrously high. Not doing said study means you can't then release a treatment to the wider public; so if the belief is that the treatment should be safe for trial (and will ultimately save lives in the wider population) then it's an appropriate course of action.


----------



## FatmanG (26 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> That is pretty much the definition of a vaccine; it's a product used to train your immune system against a particular virus; such that you'll produce antibodies that can defend against the virus, should you come into contact with it at some future point. It will not (and cannot) give you 100% certainty that you will not catch, or spread, the virus.
> 
> However, it means that a (hopefully decent) percentage of those vaccinated with either develop no symptoms, or have greatly lessened symptoms; something which is enough to save many lives (both in the directly infected, and due to the reduction of transmission).


Not according to the Cambridge dictionary: a special substance that you take into the body to prevent a disease, and that contains a weakened or dead form of the disease-causing organism.
The covid vaccine is not by that definition a vaccine. The WHO changed their vaccine definition in 2016 and it fits that definition.


----------



## sploo (26 Feb 2021)

FatmanG said:


> Not according to the Cambridge dictionary: a special substance that you take into the body to prevent a disease, and that contains a weakened or dead form of the disease-causing organism.
> The covid vaccine is not by that definition a vaccine. The WHO changed their vaccine definition in 2016 and it fits that definition.


That is exactly what the Oxford covid vaccine is (the Pzifer one uses RNA; which is a newer technology); but ultimately the same aim; something (such as a dead form of the virus) intended to train the body into producing suitable antibodies. I.e. what I said.

"Prevent" does not mean 100%. Pretty much nothing in life is 100% certain - other than maybe death and taxes; certainly I'm not aware there are any vaccines with 100% efficacy (though there might be I guess).


----------



## Jelly (26 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's a complicated matter isn't it.



Except it isn't...


FatmanG said:


> Some interesting replies but none dealing with HUMAN RIGHTS and NUREMBERG CODE, the mandate ends there friends whether you believe this virus is the beubonic plague stemming from a bat cave in China or that its a USA NIH (tony fauci) financed gain of function experiment that leaked out of a French built PLA bio weapons lab it doesn't matter. The Nuremberg Code is there to give a human being the choice what goes into their body. You may disagree with that choice but once you take away that choice you no longer have control someone else does and that someone may end up like Hitler or Pol Pot. I'm certain that not all Germans were Nazi's etc you know the rest. History is littered with lunatics and useful idiots.



The issue with is that there's a conflict between two different rights, in choosing to not take the vaccine, you're implicitly choosing to extend the time that others are at risk of dying...

_Which fundimentally contravenes their right to not be dead..._

In not being given a choice, your right to bodily autonomy is impaired, _not taken away entirely but impaired._

Thing is when that conflict arises, there's no simple answer because any conclusion will depend on "ought" not "is" statements.

Fundimentally the question is "Ought the freedom of an individual to make choices, absolutely outweigh the freedom of others affected by those choices?"

And thousands of years of philosophy, juristiprudence and debate have brought us to a point where we as a society have broadly concluded that neither right has absolute priority, and the balance struck between the two should normally favour the protection of others over unabated individual freedom.

There are already mechanisms for involuntary medical treatment where it is clear that it is in the benefit of an individual who does not appear to have capacity ("Sectioning") or where they demonstrate a clear threat to others (both "Sectioning" and Notifiable Diseases), which are broadly held to be compatible with Human Rights legislation.


----------



## Rorschach (26 Feb 2021)

@Jelly But still we have not made the vaccine mandatory have we? Not everyone who has been offered it so far has taken it up, indeed quite worryingly small numbers of the BAME community have not taken it up and the media don't seem to be talking about forcing them to have it? Can you imagine the first time a (insert racial type here) is refused access to somewhere without a vaccine certificate and they claim it is racially motivated? Domestic vaccine passports just aren't going to happen, the media luvvies will put an end to it the first time one of their preferred minorities has an issue with it.


----------



## Jelly (26 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @Jelly But still we have not made the vaccine mandatory have we?



No, and as I said in my first post I think it would be a counterproductive move.

But @FatmanG and @Trainee neophyte have both brought up "HUMAN RIGHTS" and "THE NUREMBERG CONVENTION" in a way which reads as if they believe that magically solves the moral dilemma and demonstrates that disagreement with them would be wholly unreasonable...

Which just isn't true, ethics is a difficult subject, which doesn't have any "Right Answers" (although arguably has some definitively wrong answers).




Rorschach said:


> Not everyone who has been offered it so far has taken it up, indeed quite worryingly small numbers of the BAME community have not taken it up and the media don't seem to be talking about forcing them to have it? Can you imagine the first time a (insert racial type here) is refused access to somewhere without a vaccine certificate and they claim it is racially motivated? Domestic vaccine passports just aren't going to happen, the media luvvies will put an end to it the first time one of their preferred minorities has an issue with it.



You're not necessarily wrong, although I don't doubt that some people would genuinely use it in a discriminatory manner, whilst others would intentionally attempt to use their race to evade compliance... 

Because to quote H2G2:

_"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."_​
However, the way that's written seems quite hostile to the media pointing out discriminatory behaviour (which is still very common in the UK, just not nearly as severe as in the past or other countries)...

Which I find weirdly inconsistent with your strongly held belief in the importance of individual rights, given the thing you're annoyed at the media for is trying to help other people assert theirs.


----------



## Rorschach (26 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> No, and as I said in my first post I think it would be a counterproductive move.
> 
> But @FatmanG and @Trainee neophyte have both brought up "HUMAN RIGHTS" and "THE NUREMBERG CONVENTION" in a way which reads as if they believe that magically solves the moral dilemma and demonstrates that disagreement with them would be wholly unreasonable...
> 
> ...



I am not necessarily in agreement with the other posters on Nuremburg etc though I do support the principle of individual choice.

As to the media, my point wasn't that they would be helping BAME people assert their rights, they would just be jumping on it in their attempts to be woke and appear anti-racist. But we just have to look at the BBC new hiring policy to see that they are fundamentally racist but to show they aren't, they are going to be racist to someone else instead.

Sorry went a bit off topic there.


----------



## FatmanG (26 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> Except it isn't...
> 
> 
> The issue with is that there's a conflict between two different rights, in choosing to not take the vaccine, you're implicitly choosing to extend the time that others are at risk of dying...
> ...


I'm sorry but nobody has a right not to be dead what kind of reality is that? We all die its when not if! As for making a vaccine mandatory whos only efficacy is to reduce symptoms NOT transmissibility can only help those that decide to take it. Those who would be perceived at risk are those that do not. Your argument falls down at every level I'm afraid


----------



## Jelly (26 Feb 2021)

FatmanG said:


> I'm sorry but nobody has a right not to be dead what kind of reality is that? We all die its when not if!



Article 2 of ECHR is "The Right to Life", which imposes three duties on signatories (such as our government), the third of which is "a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life."

So, er... Yeah, you were saying?





FatmanG said:


> As for making a vaccine mandatory that's only efficacy is to reduce symptoms NOT transmissibility



You can't possibly state that as a fact, because in the estimations of the immunologists and epidemiologists who attempt to measure such things to a reasonable level of certainty, the vaccines are all too new for us to be able to say if they confer "effective" or "sterilising" immunity definitively.

However the data which _is_ available seems to suggest that both infection and vaccination does confer sterilising immunity in a statistically significant number of people, which would see it have a beneficial impact on both transmission rates (hopefully sufficient to drive herd immunity effects) and mutation rates.





FatmanG said:


> Your argument falls down at every level I'm afraid.



You didn't engage with the substance of the argument, that ethics are hard, and there can be no definitive right answers, only a societal consensus which is much more nuanced than the way you're seeking to represent it...

Choosing instead to double down on the gross oversimplifications, attempting to dismiss the premise, by calling on two "facts" which you appear to have an either limited or faulty conception of.

All I can say is it must be nice to be so terribly certain, which is a luxury I cannot yet afford.


----------



## FatmanG (26 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> Article 2 of ECHR is "The Right to Life", which imposes three duties on signatories (such as our government), the third of which is "a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life."
> 
> So, er... Yeah, you were saying?



*The right to life is not the same as the right not to be dead and totally out of context imo*



Jelly said:


> You can't possibly state that as a fact, because in the estimations of the immunologists and epidemiologists who attempt to measure such things to a reasonable level of certainty, the vaccines are all too new for us to be able to say if they confer "effective" or "sterilising" immunity definitively.
> 
> However the data which _is_ available seems to suggest that both infection and vaccination does confer sterilising immunity in a statistically significant number of people, which would see it have a beneficial impact on both transmission rates (hopefully sufficient to drive herd immunity effects) and mutation rates.




*The Moderna vaccine did not even test for transmissibility rates as it would take too long to find out if you look at what their CEO said. As for you stating its all too new for us to be able to say if effective definitively reducing transmission is exactly why a mandating of something that the experts are not even sure works but in the same post you go on to accuse those that do not take it of basically killing people which is not just unproven but ABSURD*




Jelly said:


> You didn't engage with the substance of the argument, that ethics are hard, and there can be no definitive right answers, only a societal consensus which is much more nuanced than the way you're seeking to represent it...
> 
> Choosing instead to double down on the gross oversimplifications, attempting to dismiss the premise, by calling on two "facts" which you appear to have an either limited or faulty conception of.



*The substance of your argument is nonsense. You cannot mandate something that is unproven by your own words.*



Jelly said:


> All I can say is it must be nice to be so terribly certain, which is a luxury I cannot yet afford.



The right to life is different argument than right not to be dead which you cannot say would be a definite consequence of not taking a vaccine you can't even say it would make you I'll.

*Mate it is scary times I get it, I am not posting flippantly or for argument but there are a lot of questions surrounding the cause of this virus, the response to it, the lockdowns, the vaccines and before we advocate making them mandatory we need a real conversation because there are some very serious people in the scientific community that are in total disagreement with what Boris Whitty et al ad mainstream media are feeding us each day and the data we are being fed is not passing the smell test.
Theres nothing nice about this situation mate*


----------



## Jelly (26 Feb 2021)

FatmanG said:


> *The right to life is not the same as the right not to be dead and totally out of context imo*



I was being flippant but assumed that in context the reader would be able to infer the "Duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life" in the Right to Life, rather than taking me literally





FatmanG said:


> *The Moderna vaccine did not even test for transmissibility rates as it would take too long to find out if you look at what their CEO said. As for you stating its all too new for us to be able to say if effective definitively reducing transmission is exactly why a mandating of something that the experts are not even sure works but in the same post you go on to accuse those that do not take it of basically killing people which is not just unproven but ABSURD*



I don't accuse people of killing people.

Although there are statistics that demonstrate a very compelling correlation between the rise of the anti-vax movement, and increased excess mortality from preventable childhood disease; so I probably could argue that in a more general sense with a sound evidentiary position to support it.

My argument is that the duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life can be held as incompatible with the right to personal choice; and that we have a nuanced legal and ethical position around that already...

There is limited evidence to suggest vaccination reduces transmissibility, so the balance of evidence to date suggests vaccination is a social good.

The UK is currently running "Challenge Trials" where healthy unvaccinated volunteers are exposed to COVID to determine pathogen dose response, which will be followed by similar trials in vaccinated individuals to determine pathenogenic load and shedding, from which we can get an accurate picture of how much transmission would be reduced.





FatmanG said:


> *The substance of your argument is nonsense. You cannot mandate something that is unproven by your own words.*



I don't mandate anything, I asserted the nature of our current national position on a complex moral/ethical issue, and made reference to evidence of where you could see that played out in our laws, if you so chose to look.

If you mean I'm mandating vaccination, then you only need to read the three posts in which I explicitly state I disagree with it to realise that's not the case.

My issue is with your representation of a complex ethical issue in an unhelpfully black and white way to support your position as being "right", when in fact there cannot be a "right answer" because it goes beyond facts into social attitudes and personal beliefs... Which David Hume articulated as the "Is-Ought Problem"

_My argument isn't with your position on vaccination_*, but with your failure to faithfully represent the complexity of the moral issues inherent with taking any position on it.*





FatmanG said:


> *there are some very serious people in the scientific community that are in total disagreement with what Boris Whitty *



Can you point to a body of credible scientific evidence which contradicts the Chief Medical Officer?

I'm not familiar with any such information, and have been following the COVID related preprints and papers in the Lancet, Nature, etc.





FatmanG said:


> et al ad mainstream media are feeding us each day and the data we are being fed is not passing the smell test.



AHA! "The mainstream media" the telltale phrase which instantly explains so much.

I too have a suspicion of the media, but am generally comfortable that their reporting is accurate on the key facts, and comfortable verifying things independently (such as reading the scientific papers at source, and running my own stats on published data) when they don't seem consistent, or appear to be turning into opinion.

Doing that has broadly supported my view that the media is more inadequate than it is misleading, and there isn't some kind of conspiracy to suppress information or deceive us on a grand scale.

So the second you talk about "the mainstream media", rather than a specific failing you can point to it makes everything you've said up to that point sound much less credible...


----------



## alanpo68 (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @Jelly But still we have not made the vaccine mandatory have we? Not everyone who has been offered it so far has taken it up, indeed quite worryingly small numbers of the BAME community have not taken it up and the media don't seem to be talking about forcing them to have it? Can you imagine the first time a (insert racial type here) is refused access to somewhere without a vaccine certificate and they claim it is racially motivated? Domestic vaccine passports just aren't going to happen, the media luvvies will put an end to it the first time one of their preferred minorities has an issue with it.



That sounds like a game of Daily Express bingo, an example of how many stereotypes you can fit in to one paragraph. Surprisingly enough we have things like passports and driving licences. It is an individual's choice whether they go down the route of getting one if they wish to drive or go abroad.

Incredibly they haven't been abolished because media luvvies have complained about them on the grounds of race, gender or any other divider. 

It will be the same with a vaccine passport, if you want one follow the required rules and regulations, if you don't then that is your choice.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> That sounds like a game of Daily Express bingo, an example of how many stereotypes you can fit in to one paragraph. Surprisingly enough we have things like passports and driving licences. It is an individual's choice whether they go down the route of getting one if they wish to drive or go abroad.
> 
> Incredibly they haven't been abolished because media luvvies have complained about them on the grounds of race, gender or any other divider.
> 
> It will be the same with a vaccine passport, if you want one follow the required rules and regulations, if you don't then that is your choice.



It's not the same though is it? If you don't have a driving license you are not allowed to drive a car. But you are allowed to get a bus, a train, a taxi, a bicycle. You are not cut off from society if you can't drive. Some people still drive without a license, quite a few in fact, no one goes around checking your papers unless you have an accident really.

The passport one is different again, anyone can get a passport, you just fill in the form and pay the fee, there is no test you have to pass to get a passport. At no point to get either of those two documents must you submit to an invasive medical procedure and not having either of those document doesn't stop you from going to the shops or going to a restaurant.


----------



## John Brown (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's not the same though is it? If you don't have a driving license you are not allowed to drive a car. But you are allowed to get a bus, a train, a taxi, a bicycle. You are not cut off from society if you can't drive. Some people still drive without a license, quite a few in fact, no one goes around checking your papers unless you have an accident really.
> 
> The passport one is different again, anyone can get a passport, you just fill in the form and pay the fee, there is no test you have to pass to get a passport. At no point to get either of those two documents must you submit to an invasive medical procedure and not having either of those document doesn't stop you from going to the shops or going to a restaurant.


Licence.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (27 Feb 2021)

This moral dilemma was actually answered by Star Trek: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". 








Spock’s Illogic: “The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few” - The Objective Standard


Now is a good time to evaluate or reevaluate Spock's oft-stated Star Trek claim, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”




theobjectivestandard.com





Many things have been done over the years in the hopes of improving the lot of "the many". Some that spring immediately to mind might be the Holodomor, the Cultural Revolution, even the Holocaust. All because the ends justify the means. Any act of violence can be justified, based on the "greater good". 

Enforced vaccination is an act of force, backed by the threat of state monopolised violence. Are you sure you want to go down that road? I'm certain you could claim hyperbole in that statement, but if you demand vaccination, and someone refuses...then what? The options being proffered seem to be either violence or total exclusion from society - also known as imprisonment. Neither a good option, in my opinion. Far better to a) work harder on convincing people that the vaccine is a good idea, and b) not move towards a collectivist, dictatorial, dystopian nightmare. Ymmv.


----------



## Danieljw (27 Feb 2021)

We will be controlled by china completely, within 15/20 years.
They already own/control most financial institutions, industry is dictated by them, almost all of the world's tooling is made in china.
Our governments are all scared of them...
There are none so blind as those that will not see....


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

John Brown said:


> Licence.



Thanks for pointing out my autocorrect is incorrect. Would you like to add something to the discussion?


----------



## John Brown (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Thanks for pointing out my autocorrect is incorrect. Would you like to add something to the discussion?


No.


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Feb 2021)

If the majority follow the rules we all benefit.

If everybody takes the "freedom of choice" attitude it can't work.

I agree we should all have freedom of choice, but we need to accept the responsibility that ones personal refusal to take the vaccine, comes at the freedom of the majority of others, who have to take it in order to end the pandemic.


If the majority of people exercise their freedom of choice and don't have the vaccine, we are stuffed.



Let's see if the people getting hot under the collar about freedom are prepared to acknowledge that dilemma.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's not the same though is it? If you don't have a driving license you are not allowed to drive a car. But you are allowed to get a bus, a train, a taxi, a bicycle. You are not cut off from society if you can't drive. Some people still drive without a license, quite a few in fact, no one goes around checking your papers unless you have an accident really.
> 
> The passport one is different again, anyone can get a passport, you just fill in the form and pay the fee, there is no test you have to pass to get a passport. At no point to get either of those two documents must you submit to an invasive medical procedure and not having either of those document doesn't stop you from going to the shops or going to a restaurant.


Not sure anyone's suggesting that no vaccination passport = house arrest, so you wouldn't be cut off from society. Plus you could still ride a bicycle even if you weren't allowed on public transport.

Re a passport: there are a lot of tests before you're allowed one; it's just that they're not obvious to the public.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> Not sure anyone's suggesting that no vaccination passport = house arrest, so you wouldn't be cut off from society. Plus you could still ride a bicycle even if you weren't allowed on public transport.
> 
> Re a passport: there are a lot of tests before you're allowed one; it's just that they're not obvious to the public.



Actually it seems there are several here that would like no vaccine to equal house arrest.


----------



## FatmanG (27 Feb 2021)

I don't accuse people of killing people.

Although there are statistics that demonstrate a very compelling correlation between the rise of the anti-vax movement, and increased excess mortality from preventable childhood disease; so I probably could argue that in a more general sense with a sound evidentiary position to support it.

My argument is that the duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life can be held as incompatible with the right to personal choice; and that we have a nuanced legal and ethical position around that already...



There is limited evidence to suggest vaccination reduces transmissibility, so the balance of evidence to date suggests vaccination is a social good.

The UK is currently running "Challenge Trials" where healthy unvaccinated volunteers are exposed to COVID to determine pathogen dose response, which will be followed by similar trials in vaccinated individuals to determine pathenogenic load and shedding, from which we can get an accurate picture of how much transmission would be reduced.


I don't mandate anything, I asserted the nature of our current national position on a complex moral/ethical issue, and made reference to evidence of where you could see that played out in our laws, if you so chose to look.

If you mean I'm mandating vaccination, then you only need to read the three posts in which I explicitly state I disagree with it to realise that's not the case.

My issue is with your representation of a complex ethical issue in an unhelpfully black and white way to support your position as being "right", when in fact there cannot be a "right answer" because it goes beyond facts into social attitudes and personal beliefs... Which David Hume articulated as the "Is-Ought Problem"

_My argument isn't with your position on vaccination_*, *_but with your failure to faithfully represent the complexity of the moral issues inherent with taking any position on it._

Can you point to a body of credible scientific evidence which contradicts the Chief Medical Officer?


I'm not familiar with any such information, and have been following the COVID related preprints and papers in the Lancet, Nature, etc.

The WHO has flipped flopped more times than a gymnast over masks, lockdowns etc Treatments like Hydroxychloroquine advocated by many Drs were demonized and some lost their jobs for suggesting it and now after January 20th 2021 they were proven to be correct.

AHA! "The mainstream media" the telltale phrase which instantly explains so much.

AHA your response tells me your not objective, not open minded and you stereotype nor free thinker.

I too have a suspicion of the media, but am generally comfortable that their reporting is accurate on the key facts, and comfortable verifying things independently (such as reading the scientific papers at source, and running my own stats on published data) when they don't seem consistent, or appear to be turning into opinion.

Doing that has broadly supported my view that the media is more inadequate than it is misleading, and there isn't some kind of conspiracy to suppress information or deceive us on a grand scale.

So the second you talk about "the mainstream media", rather than a specific failing you can point to it makes everything you've said up to that point sound much less credible...


The mainstream media do not report news objectively anymore they do not investigate they all are telling a story, the same story morning noon and night.


----------



## Jelly (27 Feb 2021)

I have no words...


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

Well that's this thread ruined then


----------



## FatmanG (27 Feb 2021)

dont want to ruin anything
carry on


----------



## Jacob (27 Feb 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ....... The options being proffered seem to be either violence or total exclusion from society - also known as imprisonment. Neither a good option, in my opinion. Far better to a) work harder on convincing people that the vaccine is a good idea, and b) not move towards a collectivist, dictatorial, dystopian nightmare. Ymmv.


False antitheses.
Option b) is not the only alternative to option a)


----------



## Blackswanwood (27 Feb 2021)

Jelly said:


> I have no words...


I’d feel the same if my argument had been so comprehensively dissected and taken apart buy such an expert . I’m only surprised David Icke wasn’t called as an expert witness ...


----------



## Blackswanwood (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's not the same though is it? If you don't have a driving license you are not allowed to drive a car. But you are allowed to get a bus, a train, a taxi, a bicycle. You are not cut off from society if you can't drive. Some people still drive without a license, quite a few in fact, no one goes around checking your papers unless you have an accident really.
> 
> The passport one is different again, anyone can get a passport, you just fill in the form and pay the fee, there is no test you have to pass to get a passport. At no point to get either of those two documents must you submit to an invasive medical procedure and not having either of those document doesn't stop you from going to the shops or going to a restaurant.


I’m not following why not having a vaccine passport would result in someone being cut off from society? I don’t think it will happen anyway but perhaps a half way house if it did would be to make it a requirement to enter a football stadium or music festival etc? It still leaves the problem of where you draw the line but as with most things related to our response to the pandemic there are no perfect answers.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Actually it seems there are several here that would like no vaccine to equal house arrest.


I was going to say that I personally wouldn't go that far, because someone could go out and just ensure to maintain safe distance from others. But, then I remembered that anti-vaxxers aren't exactly the most rational or smart bunch...


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I’m not following why not having a vaccine passport would result in someone being cut off from society? I don’t think it will happen anyway but perhaps a half way house if it did would be to make it a requirement to enter a football stadium or music festival etc? It still leaves the problem of where you draw the line but as with most things related to our response to the pandemic there are no perfect answers.



If you are required to show a vaccine passport to go to any public place such as shops, pubs, restaurants then that is effectively cutting someone off some society. There is possibly more of an argument for special cases such as large music festivals for example where social distancing is impossible. I am still uncomfortable with that but I could be persuaded. It's the "everyday" things that worry me, shopping, eating etc.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> I was going to say that I personally wouldn't go that far, because someone could go out and just ensure to maintain safe distance from others. But, then I remembered that anti-vaxxers aren't exactly the most rational or smart bunch...



I am not an anti-vaxxer, but I am anti-vaccine passport.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

FatmanG said:


> AHA your response tells me your not objective, not open minded and you stereotype nor free thinker.


That's essentially the thrust of the NewsThump comedy site's headline "You should think for yourself and agree with me, insists conspiracy theorist without slightest trace of irony".


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I am not an anti-vaxxer, but I am anti-vaccine passport.


I'm anti speed limits; because I'd happily cruise down a motorway at 100mph+, but I accept society has rules that are intended to keep the public safe. Also, they're needed to keep others safe because there are far too many clueless d*ckheads who will inadvertently harm others due to their own ineptitude.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> If you are required to show a vaccine passport to go to any public place such as shops, pubs, restaurants then that is effectively cutting someone off some society.


Though obviously if you were unvaccinated, were a carrier, and someone in the shop, pub, or restaurant later died of covid then you'd have effectively cut them off from being alive, no?


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> Though obviously if you were unvaccinated, were a carrier, and someone in the shop, pub, or restaurant later died of covid then you'd have effectively cut them off from being alive, no?



Potentially, but how is that any different from how we have lived for the last several thousand years (or hundred years if you are talking post vaccine development)?


----------



## Jacob (27 Feb 2021)

Trainee neophyte said:


> ...... Far better to a) work harder on convincing people that the vaccine is a good idea, and b) not move towards a collectivist, dictatorial, dystopian nightmare. Ymmv.


Brilliant! Could argue the same for taxation. As we know, under lenient low-taxation regimes the money comes flooding in for public services and welfare.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Potentially, but how is that any different from how we have lived for the last several thousand years (or hundred years if you are talking post vaccine development)?


Because now we know better, and have the tools to not cause the problem?


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> Because now we know better, and have the tools to not cause the problem?



But we have had the tools for a long time. in 2015 about 30k people died of flu that winter (with a vaccine being used remember). No masks, no lockdown, no social distancing, no vaccine passport.


----------



## Jelly (27 Feb 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I’d feel the same if my argument had been so comprehensively dissected and taken apart buy such an expert . I’m only surprised David Icke wasn’t called as an expert witness ...



I'm just glad he hasn't outed me as a reptilian mastermind living in a cavern that used to be the "Hole in the Road"...

I was quaking in my scales for a minute there, so I was.


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Actually it seems there are several here that would like no vaccine to equal house arrest.


 *argumentum ad absurdum*


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> But we have had the tools for a long time. in 2015 about 30k people died of flu that winter (with a vaccine being used remember). No masks, no lockdown, no social distancing, no vaccine passport.



Flu in 2015:
No hundreds of healthcare workers dying
No extreme overload of NHS
No long term Health issues for survivors


Of course if you compared 2015 flu stats to 2020 Covid deaths had govt taken zero measures.....then you would be making a balanced comparison.


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Feb 2021)

It is a real concern that so many from the BAME community are vaccine sceptics.

Sadly they are influenced by religious leaders, elders, social media bubbles.


----------



## John Brown (27 Feb 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> It is a real concern that so many from the BAME community are vaccine sceptics.
> 
> Sadly they are influenced by religious leaders, elders, social media bubbles.


And woodworking forums...


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> But we have had the tools for a long time. in 2015 about 30k people died of flu that winter (with a vaccine being used remember). No masks, no lockdown, no social distancing, no vaccine passport.


What Robin said in post #140.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> What Robin said in post #140.



I understand they are not directly comparable, C19 is undoubtedly worse than flu was in that year, but we did nothing, not a thing, not a fraction of the response, no clamour for the government to do anything, no change in behaviour from anyone in the public, even the old and vulnerable. Indeed I would guess that the vast majority of people didn't know it was happening and didn't particularly care, even those who had a relative die that year probably wouldn't have thought it out of the ordinary at all.


----------



## Blackswanwood (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I understand they are not directly comparable, C19 is undoubtedly worse than flu was in that year, but we did nothing, not a thing, not a fraction of the response, no clamour for the government to do anything, no change in behaviour from anyone in the public, even the old and vulnerable. Indeed I would guess that the vast majority of people didn't know it was happening and didn't particularly care, even those who had a relative die that year probably wouldn't have thought it out of the ordinary at all.


I think a factor is how deadly we each believe COVID 19 to be though. Regardless of whether it was the best response possible I believe what we have done has meant lower excess mortality than otherwise would have been the case. In your example therefore I would say the comparison doesn’t really work.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

Blackswanwood said:


> I think a factor is how deadly we each believe COVID 19 to be though. Regardless of whether it was the best response possible I believe what we have done has meant lower excess mortality than otherwise would have been the case. In your example therefore I would say the comparison doesn’t really work.



Could be, the problem we will always have is that we never tried any alternative and even more importantly we never tried just carrying on without government/media hysteria. Same goes for pretty much the rest of the planet in that regard. 
As to excess mortality, well we have excess mortality from C19 (never denied that) and we have excess mortality from lockdown (media ignores this). How much is on each side though we might never know.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (27 Feb 2021)

There is increasing evidence the vaccine is (a) ~80%+ effective against severe disease and death, and (b) reduces transmission by ~75%.

Greater confidence in the evidence will emerge in the coming weeks.

In the UK compulsory vaccination has not been introduced for any diseases as (one assumes) personal freedom trumps risks to society.

The principal Covid risks lie with those who choose not to be vaccinated. The risk of the unvaccinated passing the virus to one who has leading to serious disease or death is very low. 

In practical terms, by the time any passport system is established, vaccination and natural immunity will have reduced Covid to a level of risk possibly similar to flu.

I see no good reason for compulsion for the Covid vaccine - the anti-vaxxers will benefit from the good sense of the vaccinated, the vaccinated will not suffer from the stupity of the anti-vaxxers.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (27 Feb 2021)

#139



> Rorschach said:
> Actually it seems there are several here that would like no vaccine to equal house arrest





RobinBHM said:


> *argumentum ad absurdum*


Perhaps we are reading different threads, or different languages...


Jelly said:


> So I don't find it unreasonable that if someone exercises their right to choose not to get vaccinated, then they need to accept that this will consequentialy limit their access to certain privileges (like visiting private property, obtaining employment, or traveling internationally).





beech1948 said:


> I have come to believe that we should insist on vaccination for all and that those who still will not comply lose jobs, access to shops, cinema, football etc etc.





powertools said:


> As far as I am concerned having the vax is a choice but if someone decides not to have it then they will need to accept that choice will exclude them from many things.





Anthraquinone said:


> If people refuse vaccination for some twisted belief and potentially put others at risk then they should not be upset if they have problems getting a job or leaving the country etc etc.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I understand they are not directly comparable, C19 is undoubtedly worse than flu was in that year, but we did nothing, not a thing, not a fraction of the response, no clamour for the government to do anything, no change in behaviour from anyone in the public, even the old and vulnerable. Indeed I would guess that the vast majority of people didn't know it was happening and didn't particularly care, even those who had a relative die that year probably wouldn't have thought it out of the ordinary at all.


Because, as you said, they're not directly comparable; the impact on the NHS, the level of transmission, and effect on personal health is massively different between the two - which is not to dismiss the fact that people do unfortunately die as a result of influenza.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> Because, as you said, they're not directly comparable; the impact on the NHS, the level of transmission, and effect on personal health is massively different between the two - which is not to dismiss the fact that people do unfortunately die as a result of influenza.



Every winter though the media tells us the NHS will be overwhelmed, they never are. One day they might be. You skipped over my point though I notice.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Every winter though the media tells us the NHS will be overwhelmed, they never are


Let me just stop you there. No, seriously. With the greatest respect, just because you don't known what you're talking about it doesn't mean it's not happening. I see the fear and exhaustion of overworked doctors who have just about been coping for years, and covid has pushed them beyond any reasonable point. Meanwhile the public clap for them in the streets like moronic seals... and then go and vote for parties that continue to defund the NHS.



Rorschach said:


> You skipped over my point though I notice.


You mean the fact people don't shout about doing something re flu? Levels of impact; it's bad, but clearly not considered bad enough to prioritise improvements vs other pressures.


----------



## alanpo68 (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Every winter though the media tells us the NHS will be overwhelmed, they never are. One day they might be. You skipped over my point though I notice.


The NHS does get overwhelmed every winter. Waiting times go through the roof, elderly patients end up on trolleys because there are no beds and routine operations get cancelled. 

The huge difference is that ICU's rarely get overwhelmed. Without lockdowns, social distancing and the closing of schools we would have rapidly reached a point at which tens of thousands of people would have died completely unnecessarily. We would have reached the point Italy reached last year and have had to lock down anyway. 

Look at the USA where large swathes of the Country have refused to implement lockdown and social distancing and half a million people have died.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> Look at the USA where large swathes of the Country have refused to implement lockdown and social distancing and half a million people have died.



The USA has proportionally the same number of deaths we have had.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> Let me just stop you there. No, seriously. With the greatest respect, just because you don't known what you're talking about it doesn't mean it's not happening. I see the fear and exhaustion of overworked doctors who have just about been coping for years, and covid has pushed them beyond any reasonable point. Meanwhile the public clap for them in the streets like moronic seals... and then go and vote for parties that continue to defund the NHS.
> 
> 
> You mean the fact people don't shout about doing something re flu? Levels of impact; it's bad, but clearly not considered bad enough to prioritise improvements vs other pressures.



Ok well you think I don't know what I'm talking about and I think you don't know what you're talking about. It's probably best we end it there as neither of us is going to convince the other and we will just go round in circles. 

Be happy, your side won, my side lost, but in the end, we all lost regardless of your opinion and we will all pay for it for years to come, especially the young, they will suffer terribly, they already are and the old will get back on their cruise ships, enjoy their triple lock and the world will keep spinning.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The USA has proportionally the same number of deaths we have had.


Because they also had an inept populist moron in charge who ignored the advice of the medical community.


----------



## alanpo68 (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The USA has proportionally the same number of deaths we have had.



The UK also ignored the scientific advice. The main thing though is that the UK is leaving winter when people spend more time inside and coughs and colds are more prevalent. The USA has a disproportionate number of patients with COVID and people who are deemed as in a serious critical condition.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Ok well you think I don't know what I'm talking about and I think you don't know what you're talking about. It's probably best we end it there as neither of us is going to convince the other and we will just go round in circles.


I'm married to a doctor. I've seen the affect of the worsening conditions in the NHS for the last decade. I've watched it break some of her friends and colleagues; both from the same hospital, and others within the UK.

So, no, you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry to be so blunt, but the assertion that the NHS isn't overloaded in the winter is counter to any good evidence, and not least a bit insulting to the staff having to deal with it.


----------



## alanpo68 (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Ok well you think I don't know what I'm talking about and I think you don't know what you're talking about. It's probably best we end it there as neither of us is going to convince the other and we will just go round in circles.
> 
> Be happy, your side won, my side lost, but in the end, we all lost regardless of your opinion and we will all pay for it for years to come, especially the young, they will suffer terribly, they already are and the old will get back on their cruise ships, enjoy their triple lock and the world will keep spinning.



It almost sounds like you wish COVID has been allowed to run rampant just so your generation could have profited. Throughout reading your posts one thing shines through you are only interested in yourself.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> I'm married to a doctor. I've seen the affect of the worsening conditions in the NHS for the last decade. I've watched it break some of her friends and colleagues; both from the same hospital, and others within the UK.
> 
> So, no, you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry to be so blunt, but the assertion that the NHS isn't overloaded in the winter is counter to any good evidence, and not least a bit insulting to the staff having to deal with it.



My problem with the NHS isn't the staff, it's the management and the way it's run, it's wholly unfit for purpose, I have said it many times it is in need for reform but until we stop treating it like the national religion and have a proper discussion it will never happen. 
The NHS, so great that everyone in the world wants to copy it........... oh wait.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Feb 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> It almost sounds like you wish COVID has been allowed to run rampant just so your generation could have profited. Throughout reading your posts one thing shines through you are only interested in yourself.



I think you will find from my posts I am interested in the poor, the young and the working class, the ones who are suffering/will suffer worst and all of which are under represented here it seems.


----------



## alanpo68 (27 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> My problem with the NHS isn't the staff, it's the management and the way it's run, it's wholly unfit for purpose, I have said it many times it is in need for reform but until we stop treating it like the national religion and have a proper discussion it will never happen.
> The NHS, so great that everyone in the world wants to copy it........... oh wait.


You are right we should sell the NHS to the USA.

They will run it so much better. The ambulance may well drive past you if you cannot afford to pay and you might spend a huge amount on healthcare but at least you won't have to worry about false stories from the Mail and Express about immigrants exploiting the system.


----------



## selectortone (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> I'm married to a doctor. I've seen the affect of the worsening conditions in the NHS for the last decade. I've watched it break some of her friends and colleagues; both from the same hospital, and others within the UK.
> 
> So, no, you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry to be so blunt, but the assertion that the NHS isn't overloaded in the winter is counter to any good evidence, and not least a bit insulting to the staff having to deal with it.


Rorschach knows best. Actual first-hand experience counts for nothing. Best not bother, you're wasting your time.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Feb 2021)

Don't want to get involved in any arguments, but just out of interest I looked up the NHS England budget for 2020/21 - £129.9bn. (that's just the operating budget - doesn't include capital exdpenditure or Whitehall administrative costs ).The population of England is 54 million, so that means expenditure of £2,405 for each man, woman and child in England on health care in 2020/21.

In all honesty, if I was paying £2,400 health insurance per year for each member of my family, I think I'd regard NHS service as patchy at best, and less than satisfactory if I was forced to wait over 12 months for - say - a hip replacement. There's certainly scope for improvement.

That is emphatically NOT criticism of front line staff, the majority of whom are decent people doing their best in sometimes very difficult circumstances. It's a comment on the system. Monopolies, whether public or private sector, usually end up serving themselves, not their customers, because where else are their customers going to go? Captive markets serve suppliers, not customers.

Successive governments have fiddled about with NHS organisation, but none have really grasped the nettle of trying to break the monopoly and give consumers some leverage. Until one does, we'll have a service that is sometimes excellent, but often indifferent, and occasionally dreadful (South Staffs, Shrewsbury and Telford, etc etc).

(Source of budget figures - nhs-providers-briefing-march-2020-budget.pdf )


----------



## alanpo68 (27 Feb 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> Don't want to get involved in any arguments, but just out of interest I looked up the NHS England budget for 2020/21 - £129.9bn. (that's just the operating budget - doesn't include capital exdpenditure or Whitehall administrative costs ).The population of England is 54 million, so that means expenditure of £2,405 for each man, woman and child in England on health care in 2020/21.
> 
> In all honesty, if I was paying £2,400 health insurance per year for each member of my family, I think I'd regard NHS service as patchy at best, and less than satisfactory if I was forced to wait over 12 months for - say - a hip replacement. There's certainly scope for improvement.
> 
> ...



The budget for 20/21 has been increased by £50bn because of COVID so isn't a true representation. 

Funny you should say hip replacement in the UK it costs $16k in the USA it costs $29k. Or how about a typical cancer drug $3930 in the USA or $470 in the UK. 









How U.S. Healthcare Costs Compare to Other Countries


The U.S. has higher healthcare costs than most other countries. Learn what helps drive up prices.




www.investopedia.com


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> In all honesty, if I was paying £2,400 health insurance per year for each member of my family, I think I'd regard NHS service as patchy at best, and less than satisfactory if I was forced to wait over 12 months for - say - a hip replacement. There's certainly scope for improvement.


Take a look at average yearly health insurance premiums in the USA, and suddenly £2400 doesn't seem so bad.

Also (and I accept there's an economic right wing argument in favour of this, but) with a health insurance model the poor pay as much as the wealthy (maybe even more, if their health is poor due to poverty). In the UK the poor in theory get their health care at much less than a £2400 yearly cost, with the balance being covered by those on high incomes (at least, ignoring tax avoidance).


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Feb 2021)

I don't think the US healthcare system is perfect, either. Obama's attempts to provide care for the less well off seem to have caused sufficient financial pain to some in the lower middle classes to have resulted in significant push-back. Also, a nation that spends 17% of GDP on healthcare (compared to about 7% typically in many other countries) suggests a system with a fair amount of profiteering somewhere along the line, and as little seems to be done legislatively about that, one wonders about links between legislators and some in the health business. However, I don't really know enough about US health care to comment in too much detail, except to say that I don't think it's a system to copy.

Other countries do seem to deliver better care - Taiwan* and Germany have been mentioned, but I suspect both of those have their problems, too. I think if there were any simple solutions to the problem of delivering universal health care, they would have been identified and implemented by now. That we struggle on with a less than perfect system just emphasises the complexities.

Edit to add;

* Or it may have been Singapore - I do recall a S.E.Asian country with a hybrid public/private healthcare system being mentioned somewhere as being sufficiently effective and efficient as to be worth examining to see what could be learned.


----------



## alanpo68 (27 Feb 2021)

sploo said:


> Take a look at average yearly health insurance premiums in the USA, and suddenly £2400 doesn't seem so bad.
> 
> Also (and I accept there's an economic right wing argument in favour of this, but) with a health insurance model the poor pay as much as the wealthy (maybe even more, if their health is poor due to poverty). In the UK the poor in theory get their health care at much less than a £2400 yearly cost, with the balance being covered by those on high incomes (at least, ignoring tax avoidance).



It isn't even that just look at what happens to people who have paid their healthcare premiums and then they get a serious illness.


----------



## RobinBHM (27 Feb 2021)

Healthcare provision around the world....the NHS performs pretty well. It is very good value for money.

But on many metrics, such as early cancer treatment, waiting lists etc etc it's not great....but that's because it's underfunded.

Americas healthcare system is way down the table.


Having a healthcare system free at the point of service is an amazing thing for a society to have.

the leading cause of bankruptcy in USA is healthcare bills.


----------



## alanpo68 (27 Feb 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Healthcare provision around the world....the NHS performs pretty well. It is very good value for money.
> 
> But on many metrics, such as early cancer treatment, waiting lists etc etc it's not great....but that's because it's underfunded.
> 
> ...



Having a healthcare system free at the point of service should be the basic tenet of a civilised society. It should be a basic human reaction to help those in need. Would anyone really go to someone in a medical emergency and start quibbling about a price. 

It is the same as the vaccine passport, people doing things for the greater good.


----------



## sploo (27 Feb 2021)

Cheshirechappie said:


> I don't think the US healthcare system is perfect, either. Obama's attempts to provide care for the less well off seem to have caused sufficient financial pain to some in the lower middle classes to have resulted in significant push-back.


I can quite believe - though just imagine how much that burden would be reduced if large corporations we're paying their fair share; rather than avoiding (literally) billions in legal tax avoidance schemes.



Cheshirechappie said:


> Also, a nation that spends 17% of GDP on healthcare (compared to about 7% typically in many other countries) suggests a system with a fair amount of profiteering somewhere along the line, and as little seems to be done legislatively about that, one wonders about links between legislators and some in the health business. However, I don't really know enough about US health care to comment in too much detail, except to say that I don't think it's a system to copy.


There's definitely a lot of price gouging in the US medical and pharma industries (one of the reasons Americans who can skip across the border to Canada to get prescriptions). One other issue is the high levels of litigation; my wife's worked in the US and tells me that US hospitals tend to be very cautious with testing - in the sense that they'll throw pretty much every applicable test at a patient (even at high cost and potential discomfort for the patient) because it's considered less risky than the chance of being sued because you missed some statistically insignificant illness and the patient later took you to court. All these things (high drug costs, lots of expensive testing due to risk of litigation, and litigation itself) make the US system very costly.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Feb 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> You are right we should sell the NHS to the USA.
> 
> They will run it so much better. The ambulance may well drive past you if you cannot afford to pay and you might spend a huge amount on healthcare but at least you won't have to worry about false stories from the Mail and Express about immigrants exploiting the system.



Did I say sell it to the US? Did I even mention wanting a US style system? No. Just because I think the NHS is in need of serious reform doesn't mean I want to go to a fully private model, wouldn't exactly benefit me since I couldn't afford it! This why I say it's become a religion, we can't have a proper discussion about it.


----------



## Chris152 (28 Feb 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> You are right we should sell the NHS to the USA.











NHS GP practice operator with 500,000 patients passes into hands of US health insurer


Merger with Centene Corp covers 500,000 patients fuelling calls for inquiry into ‘NHS privatisation by stealth’




www.theguardian.com




'NHS' will be retained as the brand name - as promised, they won't be selling it off. Compare to the 'NHS test track and trace system'.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (28 Feb 2021)

The last system to be held up as free market is the USA. It's a very cozy cartel with corrupt politicians siphoning off enough of the profit to keep all the top players very comfortable indeed. Lobbying is a Lucrative Investment, Researchers Find Using CRP Data - OpenSecrets News

Somewhere in the world there is the best healthcare system with the lowest cost to the country. How hard would it be to find out which one works best, and copy it?

Edit: this list says France is number one, and Italy number two. I seem to remember some kind of Italian crisis, so perhaps take it with with a pinch of salt (either the list or the crisis - your choice). Anyway: Best Healthcare In The World 2021


----------



## alanpo68 (28 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Did I say sell it to the US? Did I even mention wanting a US style system? No. Just because I think the NHS is in need of serious reform doesn't mean I want to go to a fully private model, wouldn't exactly benefit me since I couldn't afford it! This why I say it's become a religion, we can't have a proper discussion about it.



The NHS has been continually reformed though. We had a Royal commission under Thatcher in 1979, we then had a review 1988, followed by new GP contracts in 1990, then in 1991 we had the patients charter, in the mid 90's the number of regional health authorities was cut to 8, NHS direct was introduced in 98, then in 2000 we had the NHS 10 year plan, then in 2004 we had the creation of foundation trusts, In 2009 we had the NHS constitution. Then in 2012 we had the Health and social care act.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Feb 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> The NHS has been continually reformed though. We had a Royal commission under Thatcher in 1979, we then had a review 1988, followed by new GP contracts in 1990, then in 1991 we had the patients charter, in the mid 90's the number of regional health authorities was cut to 8, NHS direct was introduced in 98, then in 2000 we had the NHS 10 year plan, then in 2004 we had the creation of foundation trusts, In 2009 we had the NHS constitution. Then in 2012 we had the Health and social care act.



All that and it still needs a lot of work! lol
I don't think we will ever get things right until we accept that the basic premise is flawed. That being said, Brexit may well help in that regard, we'll see.


----------



## Fergie 307 (28 Feb 2021)

At the end of the day I am sure there will be many venues that will adopt a policy of refusing admission to anyone who cannot prove they have been vaccinated. It is the proprietors choice, in much the same way as a nightclub might refuse to let you in because you are wearing trainers. If this is the case then some recognised official document would seem an entirely sensible way to demonstrate your vaccination status. Now if there is a good medical reason for you not to have been vaccinated, I am sure there will be exemptions, just as there are for masks. If you have simply decided not to have it as a personal choice, then I think you have to accept that some people will make it their, equally valid, choice not to let you enter their shop or whatever. To suggest that this is the first step towards a police state is frankly ludicrous.


----------



## Jameshow (28 Feb 2021)

Why is the basic premise flawed? 

I would suggest the management of that service us flawed in areas, the obvious Stafford case comes to mind. 

Problem the better we are at staying alive the more it costs. My grandparents died weeks after retirement. Thankfully that isn't the case these days, but it costs money. 

Cheers James


----------



## alanpo68 (28 Feb 2021)

Rorschach said:


> All that and it still needs a lot of work! lol
> I don't think we will ever get things right until we accept that the basic premise is flawed. That being said, Brexit may well help in that regard, we'll see.



Which premise is flawed ?


----------



## Rorschach (1 Mar 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> Which premise is flawed ?



Free healthcare, no questions asked, no contribution needed, no incentive to live a healthy lifestyle/take care of yourself. It's treated as some kind of magic service that appears as if out of nowhere and for free and we keep getting told it's free. It isn't free, we all (mostly) pay for it and yet we allow ourselves and visitors to the country to abuse it.


----------



## RobinBHM (1 Mar 2021)

We don't keep being told the NHS is free.

It is free at the point of service.


----------



## RobinBHM (1 Mar 2021)

Foreigners using NHS is a red herring. It's a tiny cost.

People who go through the visa system to live and work here have to pay a lump sum for NHS access as part of the
application.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Mar 2021)

@Noel I tried, I really did, I didn't reply to anything Robin posted since our ceasefire, Ignored them all, even the ones that really annoyed me. Robin though just can't help himself, he either cannot keep to a gentleman's agreement or never intended to in the first place. Maybe he is just trying to get threads shut down on purpose? I don't know. I've PM'd him to remind him of what he agreed to but he just ignores them. Is there some way you can hide my posts from him or block him from replying? I am trying to keep it all civil.


----------



## sploo (1 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @Noel I tried, I really did, I didn't reply to anything Robin posted since our ceasefire, Ignored them all, even the ones that really annoyed me. Robin though just can't help himself, he either cannot keep to a gentleman's agreement or never intended to in the first place. Maybe he is just trying to get threads shut down on purpose? I don't know. I've PM'd him to remind him of what he agreed to but he just ignores them. Is there some way you can hide my posts from him or block him from replying? I am trying to keep it all civil.


Unless there are posts that have been edited or removed then I really see nothing aggressive/rude/controversial about Robin's posts at 07:36 and 07:38; both contain (true) statements about the NHS, and neither contain any insults. Or have I missed something?


----------



## Rorschach (1 Mar 2021)

sploo said:


> Unless there are posts that have been edited or removed then I really see nothing aggressive/rude/controversial about Robin's posts at 07:36 and 07:38; both contain (true) statements about the NHS, and neither contain any insults. Or have I missed something?



It's a long story but at the request of Noel both Robin and I came to a gentleman's agreement not to reply to each other on "off topic" matters such as these for the good of the forum as it quickly degenerated.


----------



## sploo (1 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's a long story but at the request of Noel both Robin and I came to a gentleman's agreement not to reply to each other on "off topic" matters such as these for the good of the forum as it quickly degenerated.


OK... so you want the right to make statements on a public forum but not have the other person counter them? So if Robin posts that your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries* you would be OK with that and wouldn't reply?

* Hopefully the comedy reference is known (and used so this doesn't come across as aggressive) - but the serious point stands.


----------



## Lons (1 Mar 2021)

It's very clear to most people especially when looking back at previous problem threads where much of the blame lies, a great shame but it generally is true that the person shouting foul instigates most of it.


----------



## Jelly (1 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Free healthcare, no questions asked, no contribution needed, no incentive to live a healthy lifestyle/take care of yourself. It's treated as some kind of magic service that appears as if out of nowhere and for free and we keep getting told it's free. It isn't free, we all (mostly) pay for it and yet we allow ourselves and visitors to the country to abuse it.



There's a strong economic argument with data to substantiate it, to show that for provision of essential services means testing them inevitably ends up delivering worse average service at a higher overall cost.

It's counterintuitive and often "Feels Wrong" because it absolutely wouldn't work like that on the small scale that we're all familiar with from our personal finances... But that itself is a fairly common cognitive trap when dealing with massive phenomena.

*Edit: *Fixed link to amusing and relevant video.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Mar 2021)

sploo said:


> OK... so you want the right to make statements on a public forum but not have the other person counter them? So if Robin posts that your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries* you would be OK with that and wouldn't reply?
> 
> * Hopefully the comedy reference is known (and used so this doesn't come across as aggressive) - but the serious point stands.



He is also free to make statements without me countering them (which I have not done since the agreement was reached).

He is welcome to make any statements he wishes on the topic of my ancestry.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Mar 2021)

Jelly said:


> There's a strong economic argument with data to substantiate it, to show that for provision of essential services means testing them inevitably ends up delivering worse average service at a higher overall cost.
> 
> It's counterintuitive and often "Feels Wrong" because it absolutely wouldn't work like that on the small scale that we're all familiar with from our personal finances... But that itself is a fairly common cognitive trap when dealing with massive phenomena.



I would suggest something far more radical than just means testing but anyway this is going way off topic now. If you wish to discuss the merits of NHS reform I would gladly do it on another thread if you wish to start one. This thread was on the moral and ethical implications of vaccine passports.


----------



## Jelly (1 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> I would suggest something far more radical than just means testing but anyway this is going way off topic now. If you wish to discuss the merits of NHS reform I would gladly do it on another thread if you wish to start one.



With what you said in previous posts, the impression I'm taking away is that you would prefer a fully marketised system... But are well aware that it would be deeply unpopular, hence trying to divert away from it now.



I continue to find all the logical disconnects between your positions bewildering:

All about the poor, young and unemployed, but also in favour of the exact kinds of systems and "personal responsibility" rhetoric which would harm those groups the most.​​Waxing lyrical about personal freedom irrespective of how it impacts on other people, but affronted by the media highlighting a disenfranchised group fighting for the recognition of their rights...​
I'm not sure I could cope with that level of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Mar 2021)

Jelly said:


> With what you said in previous posts, the impression I'm taking away is that you would prefer a fully marketised system... But are well aware that it would be deeply unpopular, hence trying to divert away from it now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I said, please start another thread if you would like to discuss my cognitive dissonance


----------



## Noel (1 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @Noel I tried, I really did, I didn't reply to anything Robin posted since our ceasefire, Ignored them all, even the ones* that really annoyed me*. Robin though just can't help himself, he either cannot keep to a gentleman's agreement or never intended to in the first place. Maybe he is just trying to get threads shut down on purpose? I don't know. I've PM'd him to remind him of what he agreed to but he just ignores them. Is there some way you can hide my posts from him or block him from replying? I am trying to keep it all civil.



I think if your emotions are that fragile an Off Topic internet forum is perhaps somewhere you should learn to be a bit more light hearted, not take things so seriously and chill out a bit. There is always the ignore function.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Mar 2021)

Noel said:


> I think if your emotions are that fragile an Off Topic internet forum is perhaps somewhere you should learn to be a bit more light hearted, not take things so seriously and chill out a bit. There is always the ignore function.



I have ignored them and didn't cause any trouble. You asked for things to calm down between us, but one party isn't holding up their end of the bargain.


----------



## alanpo68 (1 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Free healthcare, no questions asked, no contribution needed, no incentive to live a healthy lifestyle/take care of yourself. It's treated as some kind of magic service that appears as if out of nowhere and for free and we keep getting told it's free. It isn't free, we all (mostly) pay for it and yet we allow ourselves and visitors to the country to abuse it.



No that is the image the right wing media love to portray. The truth is somewhat different. People have become far more conscious of having a healthy lifestyle you only have to look at the explosion in healthy eating and gym use. Then you have things like the sugar tax and the smoking ban. The irony is that there is more pressure on the NHS precisely because people are looking after themselves and living longer.

As for visitors they don't get to abuse the NHS to get free treatment they need to pay the NHS surcharge.

Maybe that is why the right wing media are so opposed to lockdowns, social distancing, vaccinations and vaccine passports. I am sure they would love to lose a few hundred thousand elderly and disabled people. You know the ones who are a financial burden for the likes of yourself. 

As you say your generation has sacrificed so much for the older generations during this pandemic. You didn't seem to mind though when the older generations were funding your education and things like child benefit. Maybe we should acknowledge that we are all in this together and that having a vaccine passport is just a way of giving back to a society that has given us so much.


----------



## sploo (1 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Free healthcare, no questions asked, no contribution needed, no incentive to live a healthy lifestyle/take care of yourself.


Fortunately in the USA (where healthcare is exceptionally expensive), that's successfully incentivised people to lead healthy lifestyles - hence the low rates of obesity and heart disease.

Oh. Wait...


----------



## profchris (1 Mar 2021)

sploo said:


> Fortunately in the USA (where healthcare is exceptionally expensive), that's successfully incentivised people to lead healthy lifestyles - hence the low rates of obesity and heart disease.
> 
> Oh. Wait...



Indeed so!

I think I'm right in saying that all the research into incentives is based on assumptions about all the other incentives and pressures on human decision-making remaining unchanged. Mainly because the modelling or maths becomes too complex otherwise. But changing one thing changes the overall system, other things don't remain unchanged in the way they work.

Real-life decision-making is insanely complicated - imagine lockdown is relaxed and you are thinking of eating out. Now write down everything (and I mean everything) which you'll think about in picking your restaurant/cafe/pub/street food stall. Don't forget the weather, the picky teenager who has to be included, what you ate last night ....

Now expand that to something like deciding on a healthcare system.

I think I might already have written that anyone who claims to have one, simple solution to a complex problem is almost certainly deluding themselves. If not, here it is.

Which is why, if I'm asked whether vaccine passports are a good idea, I will reply with a barrage of questions about who will run them, how they will work, who takes responsibility for errors (among a hundred others, some of which have been mentioned in this thread). And even once I have answers, I suspect my best response might be "Probably" or "Probably not".


----------



## Robbo60 (2 Mar 2021)

I believe the NHS is amazing even though I once calculated how much I had paid in NI contributions and it was a fair chunk. Every serious medical procedure I have had as an adult was done privately via a Employer health care scheme but I didn't begrudge one penny I paid in NI. Saved more Daughter's life and several subsequent operations. It was the one tax I wouldn't have minded paying more of, IF it could have been guaranteed it went to the NHS. More Daughter now works in the NHS and it does not sound the most efficient organization in the World. Saying that the biggest private companies I have worked for also were inefficient and wasteful.


----------



## Rorschach (2 Mar 2021)

Looking good at the moment, maybe pressure will force the government to open faster, the vaccines seem to be working.


----------



## D_W (2 Mar 2021)

I missed this entire thread...but the idea of an expedited passport here in the states, I'd be fine with it as long as it was optional (as in, clearance for airlines and public trans to allow more relaxed rules for folks with an approved vaccine..

ORRRRR

big or, that must be included, proof of having had covid and recovered. 

I have no idea why we'd believe that someone who recovered would need the vaccine as we have no data suggesting difference in outcomes yet. Second infection of any significance is probably well less than first infection after vaccine (I have a few relatives who got covid post vaccine, but in fairness, they managed to catch it about two weeks after vaccine when efficacy is assumed to be pretty good, but not the "great" that it is after 3 weeks.).

They had relatively mild cases (which one would expect anyway for their age group and fitness levels (but had marital strife over it equivalent to much more severe cases!)

I ride public trans in a "normal" economy. if someone was vaccinated and didn't wear a mask, I wouldn't care. If they previously had covid and didn't wear a mask, I wouldn't care. If they had neither and sat on a bus, I'd expect them to wear a mask.


----------



## D_W (2 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Looking good at the moment, maybe pressure will force the government to open faster, the vaccines seem to be working.
> 
> View attachment 104934



Cases are dropping here, but faster than just due to the vaccine. earlier this week, there was an article "fauci concerned cases will stay at 70k and hover". 

They're already below that point now (50k in the last couple of days?). Until or unless someone can test t-cell reactivity from regional samples, we really won't know how much of that is due to asymptomatic cases being higher than expected. It appears that to some extent that's the case as businesses and such here are at reduced capacity but have generally remained open other than at really high spikes, and even that was just for a short time.


----------



## D_W (2 Mar 2021)

After the first shot, I'm a fan of the jab. Second one in a little over two weeks. We'll see how it goes. I often get complex migraines so the mild headache late evening after the first shot was kind of cute. Same vaccine knocked the mrs. out last month for a day and a half, though, and not much closes down her criticizing machine. 

We call her "the ayatollah complainy" here, as she's a heel nipper (like a sheep dog always correcting the flock). She was totally out of commission after jab 2, but both of my parents (older) waited for something after the second shot and felt nothing.


----------



## D_W (2 Mar 2021)

alanpo68 said:


> You are right we should sell the NHS to the USA.
> 
> They will run it so much better. The ambulance may well drive past you if you cannot afford to pay and you might spend a huge amount on healthcare but at least you won't have to worry about false stories from the Mail and Express about immigrants exploiting the system.




Or you could have false stories about public ambulances driving past people. They'll pick you up here no problem. You figure out how to pay later.

We spend more public dollars on healthcare than the NHS does in total. The system is expensive on the purely private side, but the public part is HIGHLY subsidized by it. (2019 medicare and medicaid spending, which doesn't cover public medical spending at state and county level - there are public state level benefits and county benefits for low income - as in, free health care - $1.4T.

The reimbursement rates for public health care are subsdized by higher reimbursements from private, so realistically, the burden on the system for public healthcare is probably a good bit higher than $1.4T.

I was reminded by Jacob earlier that Cuba is really good though. Outcomes aren't as good as the US, but ideals are more important than outcomes.
It is true that it's easier to go bankrupt over medical things in the US than in Cuba, but you have to have some money first to go bankrupt and in cuba, if you're an individual, you're already there (despite all of the stories about medical bankruptcies in the US, I don't personally know anyone who has ever experienced such a thing. It's possible to have it happen, though, and it makes a better news story than "ghee, I like to go to the doctor a lot, wouldn't tolerate the waiting or allocation of resources in the UK, and I'd like to complain about the cost here".

We have a lot of "poor" people who expect the doctor to give them something easy to fix their issues. When self-care (like targeted exercises or physical therapy "homework") is involved, they tend to not do it (that applies to more than just the poor, but my wife treats a lot of folks on medicaid and compliance is very low among people who, for example, get three visits per week for wound care and need to change dressings daily - they get dressings from the clinic and who knows what they do with them (probably throw them away).) On the other hand, I tend to ask the doctor "would it be reasonable in this case to wait and see if medication is necessary and I can come back if it is?".

quite often, the answer is "that would be perfectly reasonable", with the unspoken bit about people not tolerating wait and see not admitted unless I ask.


----------



## sploo (2 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> I have no idea why we'd believe that someone who recovered would need the vaccine as we have no data suggesting difference in outcomes yet. Second infection of any significance is probably well less than first infection after vaccine (I have a few relatives who got covid post vaccine, but in fairness, they managed to catch it about two weeks after vaccine when efficacy is assumed to be pretty good, but not the "great" that it is after 3 weeks.).
> 
> They had relatively mild cases (which one would expect anyway for their age group and fitness levels (but had marital strife over it equivalent to much more severe cases!)
> 
> I ride public trans in a "normal" economy. if someone was vaccinated and didn't wear a mask, I wouldn't care. If they previously had covid and didn't wear a mask, I wouldn't care. If they had neither and sat on a bus, I'd expect them to wear a mask.


There's some interesting data on this in The Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00501-8/fulltext

Consulting "Dr Wife" to ensure I understood the data presented on the graph - it's essentially showing that:

People who have not had a vaccine shot AND have not been infected have basically no antibodies for the virus (which makes sense)
People who have had a vaccine shot AND have not been infected show a good range of antibodies
People who have not had a vaccine shot AND have been infected show a range of antibodies that is considered to be not statistically significant in difference to the "single vaccine shot + no infection" group
People who have had a vaccine shot AND have been infected show larger levels of antibodies than any other group
It's good news; as it indicates a single shot of the Pfizer vaccine may give some good protection. Obviously this data is _after_ the UK government's decision to take this path; which still means it was unethical, but it appears they (and the population) may be lucky.


----------



## Mark Hancock (2 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> Or you could have false stories about public ambulances driving past people. They'll pick you up here no problem. You figure out how to pay later.
> 
> We spend more public dollars on healthcare than the NHS does in total. The system is expensive on the purely private side, but the public part is HIGHLY subsidized by it. (2019 medicare and medicaid spending, which doesn't cover public medical spending at state and county level - there are public state level benefits and county benefits for low income - as in, free health care - $1.4T.
> 
> ...


Having just spent some time talking with a friend in the US where the subject of healthcare there came up I can only conclude you have a very blinkered viewpoint; one might even say privileged.


----------



## D_W (2 Mar 2021)

That's all fine and good, but we like to go on outcomes and not intermediary measures if outcomes data is available. 

Antibodies fade fairly quickly. However, that doesn't seem to lead to many significant reinfections. 

Apparently, reactivity to SARS Cov-1 remains (t-cell at least) almost two decades after the outbreak. 

As common as covid is now, we ought to be able to see if there's a significant difference in outcomes between the cohorts and go based on that. 

I'm at the bottom of the obese category (205 pounds today at 5'9"). My wife is bombarding me with news stories that fat people have half as many antibodies from the vaccine. I asked her if they have shown then that the vaccine has half the efficacy. Of course, this doesn't yield a response, but it does yield dirty looks. we talk to each other like edith and archie, except edith was much nicer. I've got archie nailed. 

"I don't want to know how many antibodies I have, I want to know the chance that I'm going to get really sick!".


----------



## D_W (2 Mar 2021)

Mark Hancock said:


> Having just spent some time talking with a friend in the US where the subject of healthcare there came up I can only conclude you have a very blinkered viewpoint; one might even say privileged.



It depends on the lens here. You can pay for healthcare, or you can become broke and get it for free. I choose to pay.

A pair of very liberal friends here lived in the UK for quite a while in the last decade. I asked them what they thought of the health care (in my view, I find some virtue in getting a discounted model with lesser access) and they said they didn't use it. I asked why, and they recounted an early experience with one of their children with suspected broken bone. She went to emergency services there and waited for a while to be seen, and then was told once she was seen that she'd have to go to another facility as they didn't have xray at that facility and it wasn't something provided as a standard at each location.

To us in the states, this is ludicrous. Our spend is also ludicrous, but to contrast that, my daughter fell down steps when she was very young. The nearest emergency center had a portable hand held xray device for kids. I have no clue what it was (think giant ipad). This wasn't a children's hospital.

They saw us within 15 minutes, got back to us that there were no observable issues and asked if we wanted to say in one of the patient rooms for a while - our choice, but it wasn't necessary.

Out of pocket cost - $50.

As a canadian company president said at my last employer (a benefits firm), "if you can pay, the US is the best in the world by far. The quality of care is as good as anywhere and the accessibility and responsiveness is better than anywhere. If you can't pay, you're better off in canada".

There are quite a few here who think they're going to cheat the system and go uninsured, though, and that's not great. There are also people who think they don't need to make the effort to seek public benefits if they are poor because they are too proud and will get past it and take the risk. Having assets and stepping into our health care system in an emergency uninsured is not a great idea. Even if you don't have much for assets.

(all that said, there's a strong notion among idiots here that the care level shouldn't go down, there should be no less access, but the price should be 1/3rd or some such thing - how would that be achieved? "make it the law and pay doctors less. They get paid too much".). 

Doctors do get paid a lot here. Specialists probably far more than anywhere else in the world, and PCPs somewhere around $200k on average with those operating a practice with more than a few staff making a good bit more.


----------



## D_W (3 Mar 2021)

Sad only in a maximin way. I'm sure if you were here with good coverage, you vastly prefer the system here. 

Personally, I'd like the option of a second tier system, but have heard the mental health care system there in terms of one on one therapy is poor. Therapists have been in demand here in the last year, but one on one therapy is standard coverage under parity laws. There's no shortage, either. That's a reality of paying a premium.

If you're looking for someone here who will complain about the cost, that's not hard to find. If you're looking for someone who has been overcharged for dental or medical work, that's not hard to find.


----------



## Jelly (3 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> I asked why, and they recounted an early experience with one of their children with suspected broken bone. She went to emergency services there and waited for a while to be seen, and then was told once she was seen that she'd have to go to another facility as they didn't have xray at that facility and it wasn't something provided as a standard at each location.
> 
> To us in the states, this is ludicrous. Our spend is also ludicrous, but to contrast that, my daughter fell down steps when she was very young. The nearest emergency center had a portable hand held xray device for kids. I have no clue what it was (think giant ipad). This wasn't a children's hospital.



To a Brit, that sounds like a case of confusion over names...

Nomenclature wise an "Urgent Care Center" in the states, which you'd expect to have X-Ray, triage based on severity etc, would be called a "Minor Injuries Unit" here.

But we do have "Urgent Care Centers" here... Which are effectively a doctor's office, with no special diagnostic equipment, but open 24-7 for the kind of illnesses which you'd normally go to a GP (PCP) for, which have now so unpleasant you can't wait until your GP is open to book an emergency appointment; _these have no triage arrangements (and associated longish waiting times) because it's assumed that if you had something genuinely serious, you'd go to minors / A&E or dial 999._



The NHS definitely has a learning curve to use it effectively, if you don't pick the right service for the situation, there's likely going to be a miserable wait.

I've never waited more than 15 minutes for an x-ray in my local "Minors", who are rarely quiet, but really churn through patients at a rate of knots.

Compare that to going to A&E with a similar injury (suspected uncomplicated break) where on a busy day with no obvious signs of deformity, it can totally take several hours to get an x-ray, possibly with some pain meds whilst you wait for the radiographer to call you, if it's obvious you're in severe pain.

Yet the two times I have been to A&E with genuinely serious complaints (Infected Jaw Bone from a decayed wisdom tooth and Sciatic Pain with total numbness of both legs and lack of function in one leg) I've been treated very quickly...


----------



## D_W (3 Mar 2021)

True emergency rooms here can be clogged, but in my experience, only at the specialist places (as in, if you go to a children's hospital in the middle of flu season, they can be backed up). What used to be an issue here with ER (as in, the uninsured would go to the ER and elect to "not pay at the time of care" because they weren't going to pay at all) has been dealt with effectively. 

Friends who went to the UK described where they went as an ER, but this is all, like you say, a matter of terminology. The lines are also blurred here as health systems fight over patients. AT first it was ER traffic, then urgent care private (low quality in my opinion) centers opened, and then they had trouble with insurers and started offering things like discount cash prescriptions, which moved the insured elsewhere (if you paid for script coverage, the copay is still going to be less than discounted cash cost - paying $50 for a pair of scripts at the urgent care is more like a convenience charge. 

The large health systems battled back by opening urgent care centers in retail places (and the quality is much higher), and since then, now all PCPs offices with more than a couple of staff in my health system have opened to walk in patients 6 days a week. So you can go to your own doc's office no appointment, but you may need to see someone other than your doc if you don't have appt. Small price to pay). 

Then the battle started to come over surgery location. As hospitals lost ER traffic and had negotiated rates with insurers (That were low) the health systems started making outpatient convenient surgical centers (back to smaller buildings) in my opinion so that they could work around insurer reimbursement rates (the new centers started at a higher price - the patient doesn't know the difference as it's all insured). 

Then, to squeeze out community hospitals or inflict pain on a competitor's larger health care location, the battling health plans here have started building mini hospitals, which would've been normal hospitals eons ago, but like 40 beds and an ER. Who knows where it will all end. 

So, you can go to big ER, little ER, PCP office normal hours, private independent urgent care, or now urgent care centers within the network. The PCP office may not have an xray, but likely there will be a private imaging company in the same building so you don't even have to go to your car. 

Personally, out of laziness, I like this. If I had a chance to get a few grand back or added to my paycheck and take a lower level of service, I'd take it for everything other than mental health parity. That law has been especially good because it puts people in talk therapy instead of on pills right away. You have the option for one or the other or both, but if you're battling insomnia or something and want to talk about the root of it, you can generally be talking to someone the next day or two. 

The extra capacity (in my view) is wasted money, though. Most of the plans around here are not for profit, which means if they have earnings, they have to retain them or spend them within the system. I wish they had to give most of them back to the employers and patients.


----------



## Robbo60 (3 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Looking good at the moment, maybe pressure will force the government to open faster, the vaccines seem to be working.
> 
> View attachment 104934


Government was fairly clear for each stage "no earlier than". TBH that was our expectation, so let's just stick to it. Got my snorkel Parka ready for my lunch outside on April 12th


----------



## Rorschach (3 Mar 2021)

Robbo60 said:


> Government was fairly clear for each stage "no earlier than". TBH that was our expectation, so let's just stick to it. Got my snorkel Parka ready for my lunch outside on April 12th



Yeah because the government has always stuck to their guns and never u-turned. Oh wait! lol.

Pressure has already started and it will increase over the coming days and weeks. They shot themselves in the foot, even though they said "no earlier than" they also said "data not dates" well data works both ways so dates can come forward as well as go back. 
I've got my fingers crossed as I have a holiday booked before the May17th opening, the hotel hasn't cancelled it yet, they are quietly confident of a change.


----------



## sploo (3 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> "I don't want to know how many antibodies I have, I want to know the chance that I'm going to get really sick!".


Yea, but the first one is fairly easy to quantify; the second one is way, way, more complex  



D_W said:


> A pair of very liberal friends here lived in the UK for quite a while in the last decade. I asked them what they thought of the health care (in my view, I find some virtue in getting a discounted model with lesser access) and they said they didn't use it. I asked why, and they recounted an early experience with one of their children with suspected broken bone. She went to emergency services there and waited for a while to be seen, and then was told once she was seen that she'd have to go to another facility as they didn't have xray at that facility and it wasn't something provided as a standard at each location.



That sounds a little odd. Any large UK hospital (with an A&E - the equivalent of a US ER) will have those facilities; but there are many smaller walk in centers that are for more minor procedures. There are also a number of centers that specialise in one area (e.g. physio and rehabilitation type treatment) - so they're unlikely to have xray machines.


----------



## D_W (3 Mar 2021)

Agree on outcomes being measure. It could take a couple of months, but since older groups and front lines here are already vaccinated for a couple of months, that data is there.

Even though I got the jab from a large arranged private health system, I did see them whip out some kind of cdc card and app. Agree about your comment knowing where to go. Part of the overspend here in the US is having equipment everywhere when it could be in fewer places, but even the little urgent care centers have xrays They don't want to give up that business. I thought our friends overreacted with their response of "we just didn't use it after that", but that's their choice. I'd have just made note of where to go next time.


----------



## Jelly (3 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> So, you can go to big ER, little ER, PCP office normal hours, private independent urgent care, or now urgent care centers within the network. The PCP office may not have an xray, but likely there will be a private imaging company in the same building so you don't even have to go to your car.
> 
> Personally, out of laziness, I like this. If I had a chance to get a few grand back or added to my paycheck and take a lower level of service...
> 
> The extra capacity (in my view) is wasted money, though. Most of the plans around here are not for profit, which means if they have earnings, they have to retain them or spend them within the system. I wish they had to give most of them back to the employers and patients.



This speaks to the one thing the NHS does really really well...

It's extraordinarily cheap compared to other comparable systems in other parts of the world, and manages to achieve very good overall outcomes, and somewhere between adequate and outstanding for almost all patients on what is effectively a shoestring budget...





D_W said:


> I'd take it for everything other than mental health parity. That law has been especially good because it puts people in talk therapy instead of on pills right away. You have the option for one or the other or both, but if you're battling insomnia or something and want to talk about the root of it, you can generally be talking to someone the next day or two.



I think I might have been one of the people that highlighted the failings with Mental Health care in the UK to you in other discussions, and yes it's much much patchier with a real postcode lottery in terms of quality of care.

This is compounded by the fact that significant elements of what would form an integrated mental health service was taken out of NHS hands, to be provided by private companies, with local councils providing the funding from their social services budget.

Unfortunately those budgets are set in stone years in advance, and have to compete with other priorities, whilst the private organisations have to bid so low to win patients, that even small changes in care or variable costs results in a situation where they're unable to make money... 

It has created a zero sum game in which the patient's best interests (and often those of the staff caring for them too, who do genuinely care immensely), are squeezed by the incompatible interests of two competing large organisations where decision makers are only looking at the money 95% of the time.



You might think from that, that I'm arguing against the involvement of private companies in delivering healthcare; which I'm not wholly opposed to... 

What I am opposed to is fixed-price contracting of these kinds of services with an opacity as to the actual cost of delivery, resulting in constant back and forth over money between the two organisations who should be focused on helping the patient.

I'd be much more comfortable with us using a "Pain-Share Gain-Share" model to contract for those services, where the company agrees a target price and a level of profitability with the funding body, and if they manage to bring down costs, both the funder and the company gets a cut of the extra profit, whilst if costs rise the funder covers some or all of the cost over-run, but no margin is chargeable on that cost.

More equitable distribution of business risk almost always helps to drive down cost, allowing either party to shoulder all of it on the other hand almost always drives it up.


----------



## D_W (3 Mar 2021)

I'm sure the mental health issue will be solved. It's too bad it couldn't be done easily (in my view). When something has worried me and caused me to lose sleep at night, I've felt worse than any bronchitis I've had in the past (that's just an individual account, I realize someone with problems on the physical side would feel different). It always resolves, but at one point getting CBT in the past decade was a life changer. 

I'd appreciate a system here, though, where the base needs are covered more like the UK's at a reasonable cost, and the ancillaries, like this MH parity issues, are handled dynamically in a second layer (determined as per need). When a public part of a system goes private and people hide behind rules and disregard outcomes, nobody is served. I understand why it occurs (the private group would like the business, and the public side wants to offload it). 

Our system is all second layer on steroids - trying to anticipate what everyone wants, offering it in spades and then competing with each other. And people here complain about the price, but show time and again that they'll go to the highest cost glitziest provider they can if they have a choice. Since the cost is split between various parties, most of us don't get a concept of just how much the convenience costs when we use it and the consideration of "would there be a better way to do the day to day stuff" and "do we really need to order all of these tests and follow up".


----------



## Rorschach (4 Mar 2021)

It's almost like they are shocked that people given a vaccine that would make them safe, would then go out and act accordingly. What is the point in being vaccinated if you can't go back to living a normal life?


----------



## Spectric (4 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's almost like they are shocked that people given a vaccine that would make them safe, would then go out and act accordingly. What is the point in being vaccinated if you can't go back to living a normal life?



Yes I agree people will act like this but we are getting carried away in the moment, assuming victory is ours now we are getting vacinated without thinking, it requires a majority to be vacinated before normality, there is still a lot of unknowns about the virus and the vacine and starting to run before you can walk will be a disaster. We all need to remain vigilant and not provide the virus with one giant petri dish in which to mutate and then turn on us vacinated or not. Until the majority are vacinated the virus still has food, it has opportunities to learn and change so if we take longer to unlock is this not worth the sacrifice so as to beat the virus and then they can modify the vacine to deal with the other strains and life can return to near normality and without going back into lockdown.

Vacine passports are needed, we already know it only takes one individual to enter a country to start the spread, so why can't they have a vacine stamp in a passport which makes the passport valid? I know of a few companies that are saying no vacine no job, so some form of domestic vacine passport is needed, could we all end up microchipped?


----------



## Jelly (4 Mar 2021)

Spectric said:


> could we all end up microchipped?



Bonus!

This is a major digression, but an acquaintance of mine who develops embedded systems for building automation, has an RFID microchip in his hand which controls lots of aspects of his home.

I asked him how he got it, and he explained that it was very expensive to get one implanted professionally by a doctor... 

So he bought a sterile microchipping kit from an online veterinary supplier and DIY'ed it, then adjusted the RFID sensors to work with the chip he had. Apparently it took him three goes (and three kits over several weeks), because he wanted the chip in his right hand, but wasn't very good with his left, and he couldn't find anyone willing to do it for him. Absolutely Nuts!

But the way he forms his own key for the house, and can have things like light, heat and radio follow him round the house effortlessly does look mighty convenient. He's been working on trying to reverse engineer his contactless card to put that on an implantable chip too, which is again a little out there, but very... _handy_


----------



## sploo (4 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> It's almost like they are shocked that people given a vaccine that would make them safe, would then go out and act accordingly. What is the point in being vaccinated if you can't go back to living a normal life?
> View attachment 105118


Because almost all of them will only have received a single dose so far; and the manufacturer's only tested the efficacy with two doses. I.e. they're not "vaccinated"... yet.

(yes, there is now data indicating that a single Pzifer dose looks to give promising results, but that's only recently become available)


----------



## Mark Hancock (4 Mar 2021)

Unless I am misunderstanding some of the recent posts, having the vaccine does not make one safe. The full course of vaccination reduces a person's chance of becoming seriously ill from Covid-19. The idea of it making a person safe is more than likely something decided on social media and passed on like Chinese whispers.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Mar 2021)

sploo said:


> Because almost all of them will only have received a single dose so far; and the manufacturer's only tested the efficacy with two doses. I.e. they're not "vaccinated"... yet.
> 
> (yes, there is now data indicating that a single Pzifer dose looks to give promising results, but that's only recently become available)



The over 80's I know have all had 2 doses but regardless as you say there is good evidence a single dose is effective.


----------



## D_W (4 Mar 2021)

Jelly said:


> Bonus!
> 
> This is a major digression, but an acquaintance of mine who develops embedded systems for building automation, has an RFID microchip in his hand which controls lots of aspects of his home.
> 
> ...



I have a feeling that chipping will be voluntary by consumers. The argument will be "you've moved control of your household thermostat to your phone, payment to your phone, banking, bills ,etc. to your phone. You could do even more and more securely with a chip and here's a discount we'll provide for chip embedders". 

As soon as a discount is involved, it's over. I'm not anti or pro any of it, either - it's not on my list of real concerns in life, just an observation to what leads to widespread voluntary adoption.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Mar 2021)

Mark Hancock said:


> Unless I am misunderstanding some of the recent posts, having the vaccine does not make one safe. The full course of vaccination reduces a person's chance of becoming seriously ill from Covid-19. The idea of it making a person safe is more than likely something decided on social media and passed on like Chinese whispers.



Well no such thing as safe in life really, safer is I suppose a better word and the safest people currently in the country are Children and the over 80's.


----------



## Jelly (4 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> I have a feeling that chipping will be voluntary by consumers. The argument will be "you've moved control of your household thermostat to your phone, payment to your phone, banking, bills ,etc. to your phone. You could do even more and more securely with a chip and here's a discount we'll provide for chip embedders".
> 
> As soon as a discount is involved, it's over. I'm not anti or pro any of it, either - it's not on my list of real concerns in life, just an observation to what leads to widespread voluntary adoption.



Yeah, I can entirely see that happening just like that...

I'm not sure what data they would be harvesting in order to pay for that discount, but you can bet that the operators of the schemes would be.


----------



## D_W (4 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> The over 80's I know have all had 2 doses but regardless as you say there is good evidence a single dose is effective.



data here
* parents had both doses, no real reaction (same with inlaws). arm soreness and very mild headache were the worst for all four inlaws and parents (mid 70s age)
* wife had both shots (health care). pfizer. Reaction to the second was 1 1/2 days of extreme fatigue and then gone the same as it came - all at once

pfizer has since been found to be about the same effectiveness 3 weeks after first shot as it is after 2 (this is short term, will long term be different? don't know). 

As a low-end tub (205 pounds, but just over the line for "obese" bmi) I had the first pfizer shot so far - mild arm soreness, maybe a headache (I always have headaches, more often than not, so probably not the shot, but if it was the shot, we'll call it "cute" compared to someone who gets real headaches). 

Second shot in two weeks. Not dreading or looking forward to it, don't really care. 

Second data bit - inlaws (my generation, not parents) all got moderna shot but got covid about 1 week after. They didn't have protection yet and everyone in their house got it. Nobody was seriously sick, but with their age and physical condition, money bet would be the shot didn't do much at that point (fatigue for a week or so for one, fatigue for the other for a little longer, then gone. All three young kids got fevers and were tired for a couple of days). 

If they were exposed several weeks later, they probably wouldn't have noticed. BIL went back to work with an IT group in an enclosed space, one dude spread the droplets a day or two prior to BIL's symptoms and that was that. His lack of care wasn't due to having had the vaccine - he hasn't paid much attention to covid the whole time, only his wife has.


----------



## D_W (4 Mar 2021)

Jelly said:


> Yeah, I can entirely see that happening just like that...
> 
> I'm not sure what data they would be harvesting in order to pay for that discount, but you can bet that the operators of the schemes would be.



I think it's more a matter of the harvester of the data locking in their route (whereas, if you have an apple phone, you may get android next and then apple loses that data revenue). If you get the chip, then someone may be willing to do something (discount) initially in exchange for securing the data stream. 

Common tactic. As time goes on, the discount goes away, but people forget. 

Our electronic traffic/toll road devices here are that way. The govts. don't want to mandate use of the device, so they stratify the price levels instead.


----------



## NormanB (4 Mar 2021)

Geoff_S said:


> I got given a credit card sized preprinted card with my name, vaccine type, batch number and date received, and a space to put the date for my second jab. I can just put that in my wallet.
> 
> Will that do?


Probably not.


----------



## CornishWoodworker (5 Mar 2021)

Mark Hancock said:


> Unless I am misunderstanding some of the recent posts, having the vaccine does not make one safe. The full course of vaccination reduces a person's chance of becoming seriously ill from Covid-19. The idea of it making a person safe is more than likely something decided on social media and passed on like Chinese whispers.


Correct
After being vaccinated, you are less likely to be severely affected by Covid. You may well catch it and spread it but the chances of dying from it will be reduced by over 85%, barring new mutations. This is why there will most likely be regular updates, similar to the flu jab.
Our flu jab( Northern hemisphere) is made to counteract known mutations from that found in the southern hemisphere. The Southern hemisphere flu jab is then made to counteract the known and any newer mutations found in Northern Hemishere. This cycle continues on a 6 monthly basis


----------



## alex_heney (5 Mar 2021)

Mark Hancock said:


> Unless I am misunderstanding some of the recent posts, having the vaccine does not make one safe. The full course of vaccination reduces a person's chance of becoming seriously ill from Covid-19. The idea of it making a person safe is more than likely something decided on social media and passed on like Chinese whispers.


The single dose is apparently sufficient to prevent you getting it badly enough to require hospitalisation.


----------



## sploo (5 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> I have a feeling that chipping will be voluntary by consumers. The argument will be "you've moved control of your household thermostat to your phone, payment to your phone, banking, bills ,etc. to your phone. You could do even more and more securely with a chip and here's a discount we'll provide for chip embedders".


I absolutely oppose being forced to take a vaccine that I don't understand, or the control and tracking of my life. Says a guy instagramming a photo of his *rse tattoo, tagged with a location on Facebook, whilst


alex_heney said:


> The single dose is apparently sufficient to prevent you getting it badly enough to require hospitalisation.


For the Pfizer vaccine there is now data that shows a single dose (without having been previously infected) gives a similar antibody level to having been infected, and prior infection + single dose gives a yet higher antibody level. What the actual effect of that is I don't know. I'm not sure if there's any similar data for the AstraZeneca shot (yet).


----------



## Rorschach (7 Mar 2021)

Laying the groundwork already for a winter lockdown for flu now. 









Covid: UK must prepare for 'hard winter' of flu - expert


The population immunity to viruses other than Covid could be lower than usual, a top medic warns.



www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Mar 2021)

We can't win.

If we behave like normal social animals, Covid or a mutation thereof will get us. But we won't get flu!

Socially distancing increases our vulnerability to other viruses - flu, pneumonia etc. They may kill us. But we will be safe from Covid.

I'm conflcted.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Mar 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> We can't win.
> 
> If we behave like normal social animals, Covid or a mutation thereof will get us. But we won't get flu!
> 
> ...



Yes an unfortunate unintended consequence of social distancing. Will be interesting to see the death toll from flu etc next winter, I wonder if it could equal or exceed C19? That would be a really bad outcome.


----------



## FatmanG (19 Mar 2021)

sploo said:


> Because they also had an inept populist moron in charge who ignored the advice of the medical community.


Luckily they now have a communist saviour who can't string a sentence together. That guy, you know the guy who claimed to have a covid plan but has copied the populist morons one only putting a federal label on. The same populist moron whose operation warp speed paved the way for the vaccines to be developed your all so eager to take. That populist moron believes in people having agency over their lives and limited government the founding principles of the free world. Unfortunately smart buttocks with big ideas who think they know what's best for others always ends badly for someone. History is clear and I'm certain that the next generation will see that populist moron as a great leader.


----------



## sploo (19 Mar 2021)

FatmanG said:


> Luckily they now have a communist saviour who can't string a sentence together. That guy, you know the guy who claimed to have a covid plan but has copied the populist morons one only putting a federal label on. The same populist moron whose operation warp speed paved the way for the vaccines to be developed your all so eager to take. That populist moron believes in people having agency over their lives and limited government the founding principles of the free world. Unfortunately smart buttocks with big ideas who think they know what's best for others always ends badly for someone. History is clear and I'm certain that the next generation will see that populist moron as a great leader.


That's a bit of a word salad that I'm struggling to process, but is your overall gist:

1. Biden is a communist saviour
2. History will record Trump positively


----------



## Spectric (19 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> Will be interesting to see the death toll from flu etc next winter


It may not be that bad on the basis that Covid has already taken out a lot of the most vunerable because they were left out like lambs for the slaughter due to incompetance and shortsightedness in the initial wave, I am more concerned about unlocking too soon before at least 75% of people are vacinated and if there is a delay in the vacination program then there should be a delay in unlocking. Once unlocking starts it will be a case of Lemmings to the slaughter and another wave unless we reach a high proportion of vacinated people to break the virus's lines of transmission.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Mar 2021)

Spectric said:


> It may not be that bad on the basis that Covid has already taken out a lot of the most vunerable because they were left out like lambs for the slaughter due to incompetance and shortsightedness in the initial wave, I am more concerned about unlocking too soon before at least 75% of people are vacinated and if there is a delay in the vacination program then there should be a delay in unlocking. Once unlocking starts it will be a case of Lemmings to the slaughter and another wave unless we reach a high proportion of vacinated people to break the virus's lines of transmission.



Well flu affects different areas of society so you might see a high infant mortality instead. 

There is no need for a delay, even with the cut back on vaccination we are still way ahead of the the governments targets on which is based the lockdown easing plan. We could still move the dates forward by at least a month and still be ahead of their "tests". 

Lemmings to the slaughter is madness. Anyone susceptible to covid is either already dead or has already been vaccinated at least once, and will be twice quite soon. A large proportion of the country, especially the young have natural immunity and even those that don't are at very low risk of death or hospitalisation. In the healthy under 50's the deaths have been miniscule, almost statistically insignificant and the vulnerable under 50's (mostly the obese) are/have been vaccinated. 

We will certainly have another wave of "cases" but deaths will be very low, indeed we are actually now running at below average deaths (total) for the time of year now.


----------



## Spectric (19 Mar 2021)

Yes had not thought of the little ones, that would be a shame as they have escaped Covid and could be taken out by Flu.

We must ensure that we have the virus under control and unable to mutate, ok odds on it will eventually but again this time be prepared.

The problem is as we vacinate we reduce the available meat source for the virus and because it has less impact on that sector it has more chance of evolving into something different, it is after all only trying to survive. I think Israel is a good example where they now have an R value very low and evidence to show it is due to the high percentage of people vacinated, so surely it must be better to be extra cautious and put up with restrictions a little longer just to give a higher chance of coming out and staying out and leaving the rollercoaster behind. Then there needs to be an enquiry so as everything can be understood and documented so that we can be prepared and ready for what ever comes next and not get caught with our pants down.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Mar 2021)

@Spectric it's a travesty what has happened (and will happen) to the young in the name of protecting the old, I can't imagine how awful it would be if we started losing children to preventable illness as well. 

FYI, every infection causes a mutation.


----------



## doctor Bob (19 Mar 2021)

I had my jab yesterday.


----------



## niemeyjt (20 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> @Spectric it's a travesty what has happened (and will happen) to the young in the name of protecting the old, I can't imagine how awful it would be if we started losing children to preventable illness as well.
> 
> FYI, every infection causes a mutation.


Let's not forget Spanish flu in 1918-20 was worst for the young not the elderly.


----------



## Rorschach (20 Mar 2021)

niemeyjt said:


> Let's not forget Spanish flu in 1918-20 was worst for the young not the elderly.



It was indeed. I wonder if we see a flu pandemic in the next year or so, the old will be as generous and self sacrificing as the young have been with covid? Somehow I doubt it.


----------



## RobinBHM (20 Mar 2021)

Rorschach said:


> it's a travesty what has happened (and will happen) to the young in the name of protecting the old


It is a shame for you, that you are stuck on arguments that are untrue.


----------



## RobinBHM (20 Mar 2021)

In regards to vaccine passports, I struggle to see how the nation can return to normality without some form of knowing who has been vaccinated.

The NHS are being sued for the deaths of hundreds of healthcare professionals.

On that basis surely businesses have a duty of care to protect the public....and that means a vaccine passport.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (20 Mar 2021)

The official Covid story is becoming increasingly contrived (IMHO).

The roadmap out of lockdown was to be driven by data not dates. Thus far all we have are dates with no quantified targets or milestones.

The vaccine roll-out seems to be both effective and progressing as well as, or better, than expectation. Deaths and hospitalisations have been falling at 25-35% per week.

Cases have recently not fallen at the same rate possibly due to return of schools. More testing will find more cases!

The most vulnerable (age or heath) half of the adult population has received a first vaccination. Those under 50 in good health have a low risk of death or serious disease.

A significant acceleration (not a free for all) in the roadmap would not materially impact deaths, nor overwhelm the NHS.

Yet despite all the positive news, we are told that the roadmap can't be accelerated, and that foreign travel may not be possible this summer.

Virus mutation which renders the vaccine ineffective is the only plausible explanation. But all viruses mutate - the vaccine remains effective (thus far) against the Covid virus. If it became ineffective it is unlikely that a mutated virus would remain offshore indefinitely.

So I am left with limited possible conclusions:

the government are desperately trying to maintain lockdown compliance for as long as possible
the strategy has morphed from an acceptance that we will need to live with the virus (like flu or pneumonia), to its elimination
there is a major real risk which the government have not articulated for fear of fightening the public
I do not normally do conspiracy theory - I just don't understand what is happening.


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Mar 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I do not normally do conspiracy theory - I just don't understand what is happening



The recent peak back in January saw significant hospital admissions of lower age groups....mostly aid guess due to the Kent variant.

The difficulty for government making decisions is that infection rates grow exponentially, so decisions that start the rise in infections aren't seen until community infection rates have grown to a point where interventions need to be drastic.

We also have a messaging element to consider:
Government issued a roadmap well in advance, so based entirely on forecasts of vaccine roll out rates and infection drop. It was a cautious roadmap so that businesses could prepare to reopen....changing dates, even bringing forward could cause more business stress.

Keeping a consistent message on lockdown ending dates gives some certainty to the public and the message also is to remain vigilant.


And yes govt is concerned about variants....variants are less of an issue with a vaccinated population as infection transmission is lower and so less chance of a new variant taking hold. 


Also don't forget, people do not reach maximum protection until 3 or 4 weeks after their 2nd jab.

If over 40s are vaccinated by end of April, that's 16 weeks before full protection after 2nd jab - August time.


Don't forget, so far UK has used extensive non pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) to reduce infection spread and that is what our hospital admission rates are based on.....if we end all NPIs then hospital, admissions would be at a higher rate as it's a different situation so more young people may get ill (albeit more people of older ages would be vaccinated so actual hospital,admissions would be lower overall).


I see no conspiracy, just that the govt are going slowly they can get data feedback as NPIs are removed.


----------



## Flynnwood (21 Mar 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> I do not normally do conspiracy theory - I just don't understand what is happening.


Many govt have messed this up. Taiwan were prepared and took many actions, early. 
23+ million population.








Taiwan COVID - Coronavirus Statistics - Worldometer


Taiwan Coronavirus update with statistics and graphs: total and new cases, deaths per day, mortality and recovery rates, current active cases, recoveries, trends and timeline.




www.worldometers.info













How Taiwan beat Covid-19


The high-tech island nation has had a good pandemic, quickly squashing the virus without a national lockdown. What did Taiwan get right?




www.wired.co.uk




Stay strong.


----------



## Britman (21 Mar 2021)

A passport of this type is discrimination. So if you're for the passport must mean you agree with discrimination.

At worst it's medical apartheid.

The CCP likes this idea

If you wish to travel internationally and the country you are traveling to requires it, fine. Plenty of countries require you have jabs before being aloud entry already.

But they don't ask for that proof to enter a cafe or buy a beer or even buy food.

Very slippery slope to be on.

Hell why not make it a social credit system while we're at it.

Edit.
If we have this passport and we have those that are exempt. Then they still must be treated as unvaccinated and refused access.

They won't suddenly be less of a risk. They will be discriminated against through no fault of their own.


----------



## sploo (22 Mar 2021)

Britman said:


> A passport of this type is discrimination. So if you're for the passport must mean you agree with discrimination.
> 
> At worst it's medical apartheid.
> 
> ...


Like anything in life it's not black and white. I agree with the unease of the idea of barring people from premises; but this virus is pretty nasty, has resulted in a lot of deaths, and has put considerable strain on the NHS. A flip side to this argument is to say that you want the right to be able to put the health of others at risk, when there is an easy way to avoid creating that risk. Surely that isn't a particularly acceptable position.

With regard to those who can't be vaccinated due to other underlying health conditions; that's one of the strong arguments for vaccination of those who can be vaccinated; because it contributes to herd immunity and therefore protects those vulnerable members of our society.

Your point on refusing access to those who are unvaccinated due to being exempt is however a good example of a moral grey area. If the intention is that people who are unvaccinated (therefore a risk of spreading the virus) are barred, then unfortunately that would indeed also have to include the exempt; at least until it's considered that we have enough of the population vaccinated that it's acceptable to tolerate a percentage who are not (either by exemption or choice) and then open things up to all.


----------



## profchris (22 Mar 2021)

On radio news over the weekend I heard the head of Qantas, suggesting that the airline would require all its passengers to have been vaccinated. The justification was the health risk to other passengers and its staff.

I imagine universities might be considering this too, as a lecture theatre crowds large numbers together.

These kinds of things will put pressure on governments to provide some official way of proving vaccination status, and I'd guess that they would also need to provide proof of exemption and consider how far discrimination against those exempt was permissible. Which in itself would mean defining exemption more precisely - currently it's a matter of self-identification as exempt, and I don't think that could survive.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (22 Mar 2021)

There are many things we cannot or should not do without proof of entitlement - drive a car, fly a plane, buy alcohol, service a gas boiler, etc.

There are many jobs for which evidence of compliance is required - DBS checks to work with children or the vulnerable, vaccinations for healthcare staff, CRB checks etc.

Mostly we see these as entirely reasonable to protect other members of the public. So why should a Covid vaccination certificate be any different.

Having said all that, I suspect that, other than overseas travel, Covid vaccination passports will happen too late to be of any real use as the vaccination rollout makes "herd" immunity more likely sooner.


----------



## profchris (22 Mar 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Mostly we see these as entirely reasonable to protect other members of the public. So why should a Covid vaccination certificate be any different.
> 
> Having said all that, I suspect that, other than overseas travel, Covid vaccination passports will happen too late to be of any real use as the vaccination rollout makes "herd" immunity more likely sooner.



I think it will be more complex than that, because world herd immunity through vaccines is, I estimate, at least two years away. So new variants will arise, and one response is likely to be local restrictions.

So ...

Universities (my students are 90% non UK)

Theatres, music venues etc, for fear of being closed down

Maybe restaurants with long waiting lists

Some hotels

...

I think the UK government will hesitate to introduce vaccine passports and require their use by law. But a vaccine certification method to facilitate private businesses choosing who they admit could be a different matter.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Mar 2021)

Snce we don't know how long the vaccine gives protection any passport is going to have a rather short lifespan.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Mar 2021)

Britman said:


> A passport of this type is discrimination. So if you're for the passport must mean you agree with discrimination.
> 
> At worst it's medical apartheid.
> 
> ...



Surely the people that would mostly be affected by a vaccine passport, have made their choice not to have the vaccine....and if the majority of the people had chosen that route too....then lockdown measures would not be ending.

So it could be argued the anti vaxxers don't want the pubs and restaurants to open....as they don't want to do the one thing that enables that to happen 

On that basis, I don't see how it can be discriminatory.


----------



## rwillett (23 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> It depends on the lens here. You can pay for healthcare, or you can become broke and get it for free. I choose to pay.
> 
> A pair of very liberal friends here lived in the UK for quite a while in the last decade. I asked them what they thought of the health care (in my view, I find some virtue in getting a discounted model with lesser access) and they said they didn't use it. I asked why, and they recounted an early experience with one of their children with suspected broken bone. She went to emergency services there and waited for a while to be seen, and then was told once she was seen that she'd have to go to another facility as they didn't have xray at that facility and it wasn't something provided as a standard at each location.
> 
> ...



I have had three traumatic incidents in my life:

1. I had a burst appendix that I tried to ignore because I was bloke, a rugby player and was 'dead hard'. I soon found out you can't ignore it for too long  I ended up in emergency surgery in Kings in Camberwell. It took less than an hour after being admitted to being in theatre.

2. My eldest daughter had a major accident when she decided to take a car on head first whilst on her bike. It was her fault (or rather mine as I allowed it to happen. This will haunt me til the day I die). This brought out the local North West Air Ambulance, a helicopter trip to Alder Hey in Liverpool and we made the local news as the police closed all the roads nearby for a number of hours causing major congestion everywhere. The helicopter landed at Alder Hey, we had staff waiting with trolley, the major trauma team was waiting for us as they had been alerted by the doctor in the helicopter, there were ten of them as they worked on my daughter, they then handed over to the surgical team who had been called in on a Saturday evening, The accident was at 16:10, she was in theatre at 19:10 for four hours as the absolutely brilliant surgical team saved her life and her leg.

3. My youngest was premature (1.6Kg), I delivered her eight weeks early, it was not planned in case anybody thinks I'm being macho. I called 999 at 0210 and at 02:18 I had an ambulance at the door, I opened it with my daughter in my arms in towels and the hairy, burly and very gentle ambulance men took over, kept my daughter going and got my partner and baby into hospital in 30 mins. She and her mum spent a month in intensive care in QE hospital in Woolwich. 

So when people produce an incident where one thing in the NHS isn't quite right and they end up in a hospital that doesn't do emergencies, please remember that sometimes the NHS is utterly fantastic, that they saved my life (yes I'm that stupid), one daughter for certain and ensured that my premature daughter was OK. The total cost to me was £0. I do happen to pay rather a lot in taxes and don't begrudge a penny of it and would be happy to pay more in taxes to keep what is a fantastic organisation going. I earn more and expect to pay more for the services that a civilised socierty provides. Some people can't afford to pay, thats fine by me, I'll pay more, I do anyway through higher taxes. I recognise that many people do not share my views, but thats their issue. 

I think that a civilised society should be judged not by how we treat the well off, but how we treat the less well off. To me health care is a fundamental right, like education, and that it should be funded properly. the NHS costs about 7% of UK GDP, I think the US costs 14%? is it twice as good for all?

As we now live in the north, we do fund raise for NWAA and Alder Hey. Alder hey has lots of Liverpool footballers supporting it, so we tend to do the NWAA.

The NHS is not perfect, but I'm grateful for it.

Rob


----------



## McAldo (23 Mar 2021)

I have read this thread with interest.
The thing is, there is no firm evidence right now about which Covid vaccines, if any, are significatly effective at preventing transmission.
In other words, the vaccines are a good protection against the symptoms, thus saving lives, but vaccinated people could still be able to catch it and spread it.
Here is an article about this:








Can COVID vaccines stop transmission? Scientists race to find answers


Controlling the pandemic will require shots that prevent viral spread, but that feature is difficult to measure.




www.nature.com





Still, there is some evidence that at least some vaccines might also be useful in preventing trasmission. Future studies might tell us more.
Based on that, personally I would be against a domestic vaccine "passport", but in favour of an international one, to and from the UK.
This would not impact as heavily on people and, should it be proved that vaccines help keeping trasmission rate down, it would probably help a lot all countries.

I had my first shot a few days ago. To be frank, I am a bit perplexed by the algorythm they are using though.
They sent me an sms offering vaccination, mentioning "health condition" as the reason. However, I do not suffer from any condition that I am aware of. Neither my work, age, race or other factors seemed to match the criteria for priority. While I rarely visit my GP, I always compiled all sections in the surveys , so it should not be a case of NHS making assumptions and playing it safe.
I called them up explaining that there was probably a mistake, but they booked me in anyway.
The lady at the vaccination centre front desk was as well perplexed about that too. I can only hope nobody in need missed out because of it.

The side effects were quite light in my case, I felt sleepy and under the weather on the second day and my arm hurts a bit. A friend only suffered some tenderness in the arm. My brother, who is younger and in way better shape than myself, had very heavy flue like symptoms for 24 hours, but they disappeared soon after.


----------



## D_W (23 Mar 2021)

rwillett said:


> I have had three traumatic incidents in my life:
> 
> 1. I had a burst appendix that I tried to ignore because I was bloke, a rugby player and was 'dead hard'. I soon found out you can't ignore it for too long  I ended up in emergency surgery in Kings in Camberwell. It took less than an hour after being admitted to being in theatre.
> 
> ...



in the US, the folks who are truly poor and the indigent get free medical care, income, subsidized housing, heat, power (so their income goes a long way), etc. 

The folks in the middle here who are lower income and have coverage are the ones who are squeezed. I got my statement this year (we get a certification of health coverage for the year by law in case there's a tax reason for it). The actual cost for my family of four of group coverage (employer pays) was $19,500. That's eye popping. 

I'd imagine most socialized systems are 80-90% as responsive as the systems in the US, that testing is less (probably half or less). If I could even have half of the difference in cost here vs. there in my bank account instead, I'd opt for your system. Not a high utilizer and not usually any surprises. 

The other reference that I always get here, and hopefully it's out of date, is an English friend who lived there who needed his tonsils out from age 9-14. I have no idea what his condition was (he's not uneducated and rarely inaccurate, so I doubt his account is inaccurate), but he would get migraines that would cause him to hallucinate and pass out. The PCP for him at the time speculated that removing his tonsils would fix it, but because he could get by, it would be low priority. The first proposition of removing tonsils or something in that region came at age 9. He finally got the green light at 14 and the migraines ceased. 

He's of means, so when I say "yeah, but figure you're paying $10k more a year for coverage implicitly (he's older now)", he's not swayed. He's one of the few English folks who interrupts me constantly and says "you have no idea how lucky you are to have been born here". 

(I'm not sure if I relayed that above, or not, along with the ER issue with my American friends. I'd have been scoping out the health care structure before that, not during - they were just used to every facility here, be it a PCP office or urgent care center, etc, having on site x-rays with people falling all over themselves to get to your insurance card).


----------



## sploo (23 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> He's of means, so when I say "yeah, but figure you're paying $10k more a year for coverage implicitly (he's older now)", he's not swayed. He's one of the few English folks who interrupts me constantly and says "you have no idea how lucky you are to have been born here".


If you're "of means" then a low tax/low social support model is ideal; you keep most of your (high) income, and can easily afford the best healthcare, education etc. Not so great for the overwhelming majority of course.

Convincing the majority of the voting public that low tax is good is one of the greatest skills of politicians from the economic right.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 Mar 2021)

There is no difficulty convincing the average punter of the benefits of low taxes. 

state education - benefit lasts for 13 years whilst kids grow up but tax is paid for your whole working life. And if the kids go private - no benefit at all!
health care - most spending goes to support the elderly and chronic illness. Many need little healthcare until they retire.
council tax - most residents want the refuse collected, pot holes filled and the streets cleaned. They don't live in council houses, worry about social inequalities etc.
The real talent for a politician would be in persuading people to pay more tax. It requires a social conscience - not necessarily a common quality when cash is an on-going issue for most!


----------



## sploo (23 Mar 2021)

Terry - Somerset said:


> There is no difficulty convincing the average punter of the benefits of low taxes.
> 
> state education - benefit lasts for 13 years whilst kids grow up but tax is paid for your whole working life. And if the kids go private - no benefit at all!
> health care - most spending goes to support the elderly and chronic illness. Many need little healthcare until they retire.
> council tax - most residents want the refuse collected, pot holes filled and the streets cleaned. They don't live in council houses, worry about social inequalities etc.


I'm assuming you're joking with the above. I really really hope you're joking with the above.


----------



## D_W (23 Mar 2021)

sploo said:


> If you're "of means" then a low tax/low social support model is ideal; you keep most of your (high) income, and can easily afford the best healthcare, education etc. Not so great for the overwhelming majority of course.
> 
> Convincing the majority of the voting public that low tax is good is one of the greatest skills of politicians from the economic right.



My point is that most people in the UK love the NHS. This friend of mine is of means and what comes to his mind is hallucinating and passing out for 5 years to wait for something that was deemed not a priority. If he wasn't of means, then maybe he'd just consider it necessary or a mistake in judgement. 

I have great health insurance and given an income neutral choice, I"ll take our system. But if I were running a business, I'd take yours. If I had poor insurance, I'd take yours. 

Our health insurance system, in my opinion, makes it hard to do commodity type work or some things that are easier to do in canada. Specifically, if you're going to do skilled manufacturing that supports a 50k salary, then all of the sudden adding 20k for a family group policy as benefits vs. 10k makes a huge difference. It prices us out of certain things. 

A Canadian president of the firm I used to work for put it flatly - if you have the money, the american system is better, the care is better. If you don't have the money, you're better off in canada. substitute the UK. We're also proof in the UK that you can have the most responsive and most expensive health care around if you want and people will still overeat and do things that completely negate it. Or some who have coverage and just refuse to go to the doctor, anyway. I had a relative like that - she grew to hate going to any doctors because she'd had cancer and then a heart attack later in life. Her memories I guess were how much she hated treatment and struggling through both, so she stopped going to the dr. She later died of cancer - but didn't provide many details. I (as anyone would) wondered if she died of cancer that someone who had cancer previously would've been screened for. In the end, she didn't care. How do you provide care for someone like that at any level? 

The idea that health care is a human right at no cost or close to no cost isn't really a universal thing here. The idea that it's provided for the truly poor here (in the same system that provides the very high cost) isn't objected to. I guess there's a lot of inertia...

..

oh. one other thing. It's very difficult to retire pre-Medicare age here unless you're of means, even though the pre-65 coverage for older people is subsidized by a limitation (it's not allowed to be more expensive than average coverage by more than a formula amount - but an individual may still be looking at an annual cost of $15-20k each year for a few years, and then magically at 65, medicare kicks in and an extremely rich policy (supplemental on top of the basic governmental benefits) will be $300 a month. a "good" policy with access to the same system (but more cost sharing) will be about a third or half of that.


----------



## John Brown (23 Mar 2021)

The care may be better, in terms of hotel style accommodation, but the outcome is worse. While the cost is around double. Your friend, who is "of means", maybe hasn't noticed that you can get to the front of the line in the UK by paying for private treatment. Maybe you could mention this to him.


----------



## Jonm (24 Mar 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> Surely the people that would mostly be affected by a vaccine passport, have made their choice not to have the vaccine....and if the majority of the people had chosen that route too....then lockdown measures would not be ending.
> 
> So it could be argued the anti vaxxers don't want the pubs and restaurants to open....as they don't want to do the one thing that enables that to happen
> 
> On that basis, I don't see how it can be discriminatory.


Very clever argument, I like it.


----------



## D_W (24 Mar 2021)

John Brown said:


> The care may be better, in terms of hotel style accommodation, but the outcome is worse. While the cost is around double. Your friend, who is "of means", maybe hasn't noticed that you can get to the front of the line in the UK by paying for private treatment. Maybe you could mention this to him.



Not sure how you figure the outcome on an individual basis is better, but if you go by some survey scores where they add arbitrary points to outcome just because the service was provided publicly, then you can get whatever score you want. 

Chiropractors here often try to use those who type studies as proof that scientific medicine is flawed, but they haven't adjusted the covid out of anyone.


----------



## RobinBHM (24 Mar 2021)

D_W said:


> Not sure how you figure the outcome on an individual basis is better, but if you go by some survey scores where they add arbitrary points to outcome just because the service was provided publicly, then you can get whatever score you want.
> 
> Chiropractors here often try to use those who type studies as proof that scientific medicine is flawed, but they haven't adjusted the covid out of anyone.



The UK and USA have health care models that are at opposite ends of the spectrum and I would say both are quite flawed.

The NHS is underfunded and overstretched.

The USA system is a for profit business model. It is motivated by shareholder profit not patient care.....once you get greed driving a healthcare system it only means one thing: the system only works for the rich.

Sadly UK politics is driven by self interest and healthcare decisions are being influenced by personal gain. The UK is now being targeted by USA healthcare businesses and US libertarian groups who are funding so called think tanks and lobby groups in exchange for political influence.


----------



## Jonm (24 Mar 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> The UK and USA have health care models that are at opposite ends of the spectrum and I would say both are quite flawed.
> 
> The NHS is underfunded and overstretched.
> 
> ...


Trump talked about a trade deal with UK and “opening up the NHS to competition“. Some may think that Trump had the interests of UK residents at heart and wanted to reduce costs of the NHS for us. My interpretation of this is that the NHS buys medicines centrally and has huge purchasing power and uses this to drive down prices. We often pay less for US made drugs than the Americans. Trump wanted to break this monopoly. We need to be very careful with any trade deal with USA.


----------



## Lons (24 Mar 2021)

John Brown said:


> The care may be better, in terms of hotel style accommodation, but the outcome is worse. While the cost is around double. Your friend, who is "of means", maybe hasn't noticed that you can get to the front of the line in the UK by paying for private treatment. Maybe you could mention this to him.



Exactly!

In 2018 my wife needed an urgent operation on her heel and the NHS / GP practice wouldn't refer her to a consultant, they spent months pushing her through various physio treatments which even the physios said was a waste of time until she was so bad I needed to buy a mobility scooter so I lost patience, paid for a private consultation and we got the operation pushed through quickly on the NHS but the result was a much more complicated and invasive procedure than would have been required if done earlier.
Now she has a similar issue with her other heel, same result as the GP practice refuses to refer her ( they get paid to defer these ), no way we're going down that path again so we're having to pay privately or spend many months / years jumping through hoops, we're lucky we can find the money, many can't.


----------



## D_W (24 Mar 2021)

RobinBHM said:


> The UK and USA have health care models that are at opposite ends of the spectrum and I would say both are quite flawed.
> 
> The NHS is underfunded and overstretched.
> 
> ...



This is sort of a flawed argument. It's more accurate to say that the US system has nothing to manage utilization. It doesn't work only for the rich as the socialized part of our system is far larger than the entire nhs. 

As I mentioned above, if I could have the difference in cost stashed in my paycheck, I'd take the UK system, but we don't have that choice over here.

Much of the healthcare delivery here is by not for profit systems. Where I live, both large systems are not for profit, which means they can't distribute earnings and generally aren't subject to property taxes. Instead they roll their retained reserves around and buy up territory. The utilization and cost of care is more expensive through them than for profit groups because they get to retain their monies for expansion. The more their customers utilize the system, the higher they can legally set rates.


----------



## Dave Moore (24 Mar 2021)

Jameshow said:


> We have manditory seatbelts for those traveling in cars which saves 100's of lives.
> 
> No one says I'm not wearing one to a PC....
> 
> ...


What about those that are exempt? Are you keeping them out of the pub or into the gas chambers?


----------



## Droogs (24 Mar 2021)

like smokers they can wait in the beer garden or in the bike shed


----------

