niemeyjt
Established Member
Let's not forget Spanish flu in 1918-20 was worst for the young not the elderly.
Vaccine Passports (domestic).
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
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
Established Member
It is a shame for you, that you are stuck on arguments that are untrue.
RobinBHM
Established Member
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.
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
Established Member
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 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
RobinBHM
Established Member
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 ***.
If over 40s are vaccinated by end of April, that's 16 weeks before full protection after 2nd *** - 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
Established Member
Many govt have messed this up. Taiwan were prepared and took many actions, early.
23+ million population.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/taiwan/
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-coronavirus-covid-responseStay strong.
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.
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.
Last edited:
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
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
Established Member
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.
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
Established Member
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.
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
Established Member
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
Established Member
Snce we don't know how long the vaccine gives protection any passport is going to have a rather short lifespan.
RobinBHM
Established Member
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
Established Member
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
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:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z
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.
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:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z
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.
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
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
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
Somewhat extinguished member
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
Established Member
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.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
I'm assuming you're joking with the above. I really really hope you're joking with the above.
Similar threads
- Locked
