*requires citation
Vaccine Passports (domestic).
- Thread starter Rorschach
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
*requires citation
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.
You can't buy a yellow fever certificate off the internet. Not readily anyway, the dark web perhaps.
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.
Last edited:
One of many tricky situations it raises.
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?
That's a false equivalence.
Vaccination status is not the same as revealing intimate details of a medical condition, or treatment...
beech1948
Established Member
I don't see that any secure medical info is being exposed by proving you had the ***. That is just hyper picky wording to make a point.
What worries me is the 20%+ who are refusing to have the ***. 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 *** there can be no valid reason to refuse it.
What worries me is the 20%+ who are refusing to have the ***. 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 *** there can be no valid reason to refuse it.
Isn't it? Let's see how that goes.
Jeez! Anything else you would like to force people to do? I am glad we are not personally acquainted.
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
Established Member
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)!
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.
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.
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:
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
Established Member
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.
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.
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
Established Member
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?
You try telling that to the majority of female above that age...
@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 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.
Similar threads
- Locked
