Vaccine Passports - currently being considered in Scotland & Wales

[Domh245]

I’m not talking about the U.K. For more have a look at this site https://www.channel4.com/news/indonesias-covid-disaster-delta-variant-killing-150-children-a-week

The rapid spread of the Delta variant is alarming Indonesian paediatricians, who say one in eight of those infected are children.

More than 700 children, half of them under five, have died since May.

Health experts are blaming poverty and malnutrition.

Apples and pears.

 

[Cowley]

This has gone somewhat off topic here…
If it’s something that’s veering too far from the original subject matter then it’s always best to start a new thread on it.
Thanks

 

[35B]

Wouldn't they? Would most people consider the NHS England chief executive as a muppet if Dido Harding were to get the job next (which seems entirely possible)?

She’s been rejected, and an appointment made.

 

[MikeWM]

No need to wait until Autumn, it seems

Walked past a queue of hundreds (outside, in the rain) in central London today. Turns out they were queuing in order to show their government-issued permission that they were sufficiently healthy to attend the theatre, via an app on their phone, to some random security guard or other, else they weren’t allowed in.

I’ve been writing about this theoretically for a year or so now. But seeing it in action was really quite chilling. Normalising the process of requiring government permission for things that previously you were entirely free to do.

A vision of the (very near) future in most places, I fear

 

[NorthKent1989]

No need to wait until Autumn, it seems

Walked past a queue of hundreds (outside, in the rain) in central London today. Turns out they were queuing in order to show their government-issued permission that they were sufficiently healthy to attend the theatre, via an app on their phone, to some random security guard or other, else they weren’t allowed in.

I’ve been writing about this theoretically for a year or so now. But seeing it in action was really quite chilling. Normalising the process of requiring government permission for things that previously you were entirely free to do.

A vision of the (very near) future in most places, I fear

The same people who want DVP’s will be the first to moan about their own civil liberties, it’s sad, thankfully I feel that DVP’s won’t go ahead, I’ve received communication from my local MP (a copy and paste one clearly) stating that she and her colleagues will vote against this overreaction.

 

[Dent]

The same people who want DVP’s will be the first to moan about their own civil liberties, it’s sad, thankfully I feel that DVP’s won’t go ahead, I’ve received communication from my local MP (a copy and paste one clearly) stating that she and her colleagues will vote against this overreaction.

The post you quoted gave an example where is already has gone ahead, and I am sure it is not the only example.

 

[35B]

No need to wait until Autumn, it seems

Walked past a queue of hundreds (outside, in the rain) in central London today. Turns out they were queuing in order to show their government-issued permission that they were sufficiently healthy to attend the theatre, via an app on their phone, to some random security guard or other, else they weren’t allowed in.

I’ve been writing about this theoretically for a year or so now. But seeing it in action was really quite chilling. Normalising the process of requiring government permission for things that previously you were entirely free to do.

A vision of the (very near) future in most places, I fear

I will be attending the Albert Hall in a few weeks, where the venue have a number of requirements designed to mitigate the risk of spreading Covid. One of the venue's requirements is a vaccine certificate, where the government makes that information available and consenting parties (venue, patron) agree to use it as a means of proof.

 

[MikeWM]

I will be attending the Albert Hall in a few weeks, where the venue have a number of requirements designed to mitigate the risk of spreading Covid. One of the venue's requirements is a vaccine certificate, where the government makes that information available and consenting parties (venue, patron) agree to use it as a means of proof.

Exactly so - encouraged by the government's guidance (and in the case of nightclubs, threats - 'do this or we'll make you do it anyway'), the 'vaccine passports' are already here and being used, and their use will inevitably grow, whether the government ends up *mandating* them or not.

However you wish to phrase it, the simple fact is that things you used to be able to do freely, now require you to obtain permission from the government first. That's a totally fundamental change in the contract of our society. It's not going to be a temporary thing, it will grow and grow, and the conditions to obtain that permission will become more complex and more difficult.

I vowed at the start of this that any business that implemented this sort of thing would not only be boycotted by me while they did it, but for life. So that's one London theatre and the Royal Albert Hall so far. I fear it is going to become a very long list.

 

[DustyBin]

I will be attending the Albert Hall in a few weeks, where the venue have a number of requirements designed to mitigate the risk of spreading Covid. One of the venue's requirements is a vaccine certificate, where the government makes that information available and consenting parties (venue, patron) agree to use it as a means of proof.

So it is indeed the government who facilitate and encourage this, and the venues management are simply “useful idiots”.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Exactly so - encouraged by the government's guidance (and in the case of nightclubs, threats - 'do this or we'll make you do it anyway'), the 'vaccine passports' are already here and being used, and their use will inevitably grow, whether the government ends up *mandating* them or not.

However you wish to phrase it, the simple fact is that things you used to be able to do freely, now require you to obtain permission from the government first. That's a totally fundamental change in the contract of our society. It's not going to be a temporary thing, it will grow and grow, and the conditions to obtain that permission will become more complex and more difficult.

I vowed at the start of this that any business that implemented this sort of thing would not only be boycotted by me while they did it, but for life. So that's one London theatre and the Royal Albert Hall so far. I fear it is going to become a very long list.

In Italy vaccinated people have burnt their vaccine status cards in solidarity with the unvaccinated, while there has been vocal opposition over here about draconian measures, I would be amazed if people went that far.

I shan’t use any place that wants proof of vaccine status, the whole thing is utterly unnecessary.

So it is indeed the government who facilitate and encourage this, and the venues management are simply “useful idiots”.

It’s looking that way, anyone who supports this is more than an idiot, even an idiot has brains.

 

[35B]

Exactly so - encouraged by the government's guidance (and in the case of nightclubs, threats - 'do this or we'll make you do it anyway'), the 'vaccine passports' are already here and being used, and their use will inevitably grow, whether the government ends up *mandating* them or not.

However you wish to phrase it, the simple fact is that things you used to be able to do freely, now require you to obtain permission from the government first. That's a totally fundamental change in the contract of our society. It's not going to be a temporary thing, it will grow and grow, and the conditions to obtain that permission will become more complex and more difficult.

I vowed at the start of this that any business that implemented this sort of thing would not only be boycotted by me while they did it, but for life. So that's one London theatre and the Royal Albert Hall so far. I fear it is going to become a very long list.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not they are desirable, or for how long they may be required, but I do wish you wouldn't misrepresent the position. The venue has chosen to implement this requirement, and I do not require the government's permission any more than I did last time I was there. What the government have done is make that proof available in a relatively easy to obtain form.

Having been somewhere this weekend where I've had a chance to talk to one of those setting policy for how a large church opens up, I've been struck by how challenging they've found it. Not because of the government advice, but because of the very broad range of opinions their congregation have. I don't entirely agree with all they've done, but I respect the difficult balances they've had to strike - balances where hard line "right" and "wrong" views make sensible resolution for the needs of all harder than it already is.

 

[NorthKent1989]

We can agree to disagree on whether or not they are desirable, or for how long they may be required, but I do wish you wouldn't misrepresent the position. The venue has chosen to implement this requirement, and I do not require the government's permission any more than I did last time I was there. What the government have done is make that proof available in a relatively easy to obtain form.

Having been somewhere this weekend where I've had a chance to talk to one of those setting policy for how a large church opens up, I've been struck by how challenging they've found it. Not because of the government advice, but because of the very broad range of opinions their congregation have. I don't entirely agree with all they've done, but I respect the difficult balances they've had to strike - balances where hard line "right" and "wrong" views make sensible resolution for the needs of all harder than it already is.

Except @MikeWM is right though and isn’t misrepresenting anything at all, the fact is now things you could do freely in 2019 you now have to abide by nonsensical conditions just to take part.

In 2019 I could go to a nightclub and my biggest worry would be if I kept my ID for entry safe in my pocket, now In order to do the same activity in 2021 I have to prove my vaccine status.

Even you can see that what we have now isn’t anywhere near as normal as it was in 2019

 

[MikeWM]

We can agree to disagree on whether or not they are desirable, or for how long they may be required, but I do wish you wouldn't misrepresent the position. The venue has chosen to implement this requirement, and I do not require the government's permission any more than I did last time I was there. What the government have done is make that proof available in a relatively easy to obtain form.

I don't think that is misrepresenting the position in the slightest. The government has advised and encouraged venues to do these checks, and have provided a mechanism for individuals to do so, and also a mechanism for venues to authenticate these permission documents. Without this permission document from the government, the venue won't let you in. Yes, *at the moment* it is the choice of the venue whether to ignore this advice and let you in anyway, but in the cases mentioned they are not going to do so.

Having been somewhere this weekend where I've had a chance to talk to one of those setting policy for how a large church opens up, I've been struck by how challenging they've found it. Not because of the government advice, but because of the very broad range of opinions their congregation have. I don't entirely agree with all they've done, but I respect the difficult balances they've had to strike - balances where hard line "right" and "wrong" views make sensible resolution for the needs of all harder than it already is.

There is nothing 'right' about having to produce government approval of health status to undertake a leisure activity, so there's nothing 'difficult' about such a decision. In my 40-odd years on this earth, I have never once had to do that, and nor had anyone else, and society functioned just fine. We don't need to do this and we absolutely shouldn't be doing it if we want to live in a free society. That couldn't be more black-and-white to me, and as I've made crystal clear, anywhere that implements such a system will be boycotted by me for life.

 

[35B]

I don't think that is misrepresenting the position in the slightest. The government has advised and encouraged venues to do these checks, and have provided a mechanism for individuals to do so, and also a mechanism for venues to authenticate these permission documents. Without this permission document from the government, the venue won't let you in. Yes, *at the moment* it is the choice of the venue whether to ignore this advice and let you in anyway, but in the cases mentioned they are not going to do so.

There is nothing 'right' about having to produce government approval of health status to undertake a leisure activity, so there's nothing 'difficult' about such a decision. In my 40-odd years on this earth, I have never once had to do that, and nor had anyone else, and society functioned just fine. We don't need to do this and we absolutely shouldn't be doing it if we want to live in a free society. That couldn't be more black-and-white to me, and as I've made crystal clear, anywhere that implements such a system will be boycotted by me for life.

The example I gave from last weekend didn't involve vaccine passports, but a variety of measures associated with the trade-offs needed to support their entire current and potential congregation. A more detailed discussion would belong elsewhere; my point is that the clergy at this church needed to weigh up a number of factors to make their decisions, considering the impact they'd have on all those who might attend. Dogmatism, of whatever kind, would have made finding their balance unnecessarily difficult.

As for the Albert Hall, you are almost certainly right that they have been encouraged to act as they are doing, and certainly right that they could not administer that policy effectively without some element of government support. The question for me is why that voluntary policy is so unreasonable - and it is a misrepresentation to say that it is a government permission to attend; the government is providing me with the proof I need to allow me to meet the venue's entry requirement. Indeed, it's rather more liberal than the "Challenge 25" requirement imposed by most licensing authorities, where acquiring the necessary proof to do something entirely legal involves that person buying a proof of identity.

Oh - and they do provide alternatives to this government provided document; I'll be using one of the them (a recent LFT test) for my 16 year old son.

 

[Cdd89]

anywhere that implements such a system will be boycotted by me for life.

I absolutely support your right to do this, and indeed it is the best way to get the message through. With one observation: your position would be infinitely more powerful if you boycotted such businesses despite having had the vaccine. Think of the power of showing your vaccine passport, and then walking away…

 

[Annetts key]

I’m not sure boycotting venues will make much difference unless a substantial number of people join the boycott. Businesses are not going to worry about a small minority boycotting if they have plenty of customers.

The fact that so far, all events and venues where there are/have been restrictions on entry have been a success tells me that they are not having any problems getting customers.

So regardless of the rights and wrongs of this policy from the government, I don’t see it disappearing until the vaccination rates have became sufficiently high that the policy can be dropped.

 

[MikeWM]

I absolutely support your right to do this, and indeed it is the best way to get the message through. With one observation: your position would be infinitely more powerful if you boycotted such businesses despite having had the vaccine. Think of the power of showing your vaccine passport, and then walking away…

That still requires disclosing what ought-to-be-private medical information to random individuals, however, so either way I'd rather not...

Your basic point stands though - protests are far more effective when everyone is involved, rather than a small group. We need everyone, whether vaccinated or not, tested or not, had the disease or not, to oppose this.

 

[Cdd89]

Your basic point stands though - protests are far more effective when everyone is involved, rather than a small group. We need everyone, whether vaccinated or not, tested or not, had the disease or not, to oppose this.

Notably, the passenger locator form includes a “prefer not to say” option for vaccination status. Which I clicked (for all three of us) recently when returning from a Green country; but 10 days’ isolation and an extra £50 of tests seemed a little pricey for an Amber protest

 

[NorthKent1989]

I’m not sure boycotting venues will make much difference unless a substantial number of people join the boycott. Businesses are not going to worry about a small minority boycotting if they have plenty of customers.

The fact that so far, all events and venues where there are/have been restrictions on entry have been a success tells me that they are not having any problems getting customers.

So regardless of the rights and wrongs of this policy from the government, I don’t see it disappearing until the vaccination rates have became sufficiently high that the policy can be dropped.

There are no rights to DVP’s at all it’s all wrong, DVP’s won’t eveer be gotten rid of by the government once they’ve arrived they’re here to stay, however a pub in Harwich was boycotted after they proposed a checkpoint system and they soon changed their minds and dropped the policy, It might be a small victory but if more people do this then it will be the only way it’ll be dropped

That still requires disclosing what ought-to-be-private medical information to random individuals, however, so either way I'd rather not...

Your basic point stands though - protests are far more effective when everyone is involved, rather than a small group. We need everyone, whether vaccinated or not, tested or not, had the disease or not, to oppose this.

Sadly any protest against this has been largely ignored by the media.

Good news though that many of my vaxxed friends have been vocal about DVP’s as they can see the bigger picture, and I’m sure there are many who are against DVP’s

 

[duncanp]

That still requires disclosing what ought-to-be-private medical information to random individuals, however, so either way I'd rather not...

Your basic point stands though - protests are far more effective when everyone is involved, rather than a small group. We need everyone, whether vaccinated or not, tested or not, had the disease or not, to oppose this.

It seems that some people are taking you at your word.

Police clash with anti-vaccine protesters as they descend on BBC

The protesters, opposing vaccine passports and vaccination of children, were seen clashing with police outside the broadcaster's White City headquarters.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Anti-vax assault on BBC: Police battle to defend broadcaster's west London studios as dozens of activists protesting vaccine passports and jabs for children try to storm building​

• Protesters opposing vaccine passports and child vaccinations swarmed on the west London base of the BBC
• Video shows a large group clashing with police officers outside the BBC's White City Studios in west London
• Today's protest at the BBC appears to have been organised by an anti-lockdown group called Official Voice
• Ahead of the protest, the group called on supporters to descend on London and said 'media is the problem'

Dozens of anti-vaccine protesters attempted to storm the BBC's west London studios this afternoon prompting violent clashes with police.

The protest, organised by Official Voice, is believed to be directed against vaccine passports and jabs for children.

On its Instagram page, Official Voice said the 'media is the problem' and proclaimed that 'the lies will end' as it urged supporters to descend on London for today's protest from as early as July 27.

The protesters started at Shepherds Bush Green at around 1pm before making the short journey to the site in White City.

There, they were filmed clashing with police outside the building, with at least one of the protesters wearing a beret as they tussled with officers.

Video shows police attempting to push back protesters in a bid desperate bid to stop the group getting inside the centre.

Initially, the police were seemingly overwhelmed before reinforcements quickly arrived, including officers with batons.

The BBC sold the site to property developers Stanhope plc in 2013, who said that the new Television Centre would be opened up to the public, offering entertainment and leisure facilities and around 1,000 new homes.

Currently, the site is used for ITV live programmes such as This Morning and Loose Women, as well as some live BBC shows.

Paul Brown, who uploaded the footage to Twitter, said: 'Official Voice protesters try storming the BBC studios at White City but them come up against a heavy police presence.

'They are protesting against vaccine passports and vaccine for kids.'

The Met Police said this afternoon: 'We're aware of a group of demonstrators who, having set off from Shepherds Bush Green at around 1pm, are now gathered outside a commercial premises in Wood Lane, White City.

'There have been no arrests but officers are in attendance and will continue to monitor the situation.'

It comes just months after it was revealed the BBC had upgraded its security protocols after a spate of death threats towards staff.

Newsnight's political editor, Nicholas Watt, was also chased and harangued by demonstrators outside Downing Street in June by anti-lockdown protesters.

Fran Unsworth, the BBC's director of news and current affairs, said in June that abuse of journalists was a 'growing problem'.

In a letter, seen by the Observer, Ms Unsworth urged staff to complete a training course on how to 'react to an in person attack'.

Today's incident took place outside the BBC's former home at White City. Formerly known as BBC Media Village, the site is now named White City Place.

 

[Dent]

It seems that some people are taking you at your word.

Police clash with anti-vaccine protesters as they descend on BBC

The protesters, opposing vaccine passports and vaccination of children, were seen clashing with police outside the broadcaster's White City headquarters.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The use of the term "anti-vaccine protesters" is inaccurate and rather misleading. From the article it is clear that this is a protest against requirements for vaccination passports, not against vaccination.

 

[MikeWM]

Notably, the passenger locator form includes a “prefer not to say” option for vaccination status.

That's... rather interesting.

It seems that some people are taking you at your word.

Despite regularly reading all the obvious anti-lockdown stuff, I've never heard of the group 'Official Voice' so can't really comment on them. The comments on the article are interesting (though I have noted that the best-rated comments on Daily Mail reports have mostly been on the highly sceptical side for a while now).

 

[NorthKent1989]

It seems that some people are taking you at your word.

Police clash with anti-vaccine protesters as they descend on BBC

The protesters, opposing vaccine passports and vaccination of children, were seen clashing with police outside the broadcaster's White City headquarters.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It’s not so much anti vaccine protests as it’s more anti vaccine passports protests which includes many vaxxed people

 

[Bantamzen]

The use of the term "anti-vaccine protesters" is inaccurate and rather misleading. From the article it is clear that this is a protest against requirements for vaccination passports, not against vaccination.

I was just thinking that. Unfortunately the phrase "anti-vaxxer" has come to describe anyone that doesn't follow the government narrative.

 

[DustyBin]

The use of the term "anti-vaccine protesters" is inaccurate and rather misleading. From the article it is clear that this is a protest against requirements for vaccination passports, not against vaccination.

It's the usual tactic of (mis)labelling people to shut down debate and discredit them.

 

[Domh245]

The question for me is why that voluntary policy is so unreasonable - and it is a misrepresentation to say that it is a government permission to attend; the government is providing me with the proof I need to allow me to meet the venue's entry requirement.

I fail to see what benefit the RAH themselves gain from knowing your vaccine status

-They aren't a healthcare provider, so the primary benefit of vaccination (reduction in likelihood of infection/severity of symptoms) is irrelevant
-They won't get punished in the event of an outbreak originating on their premises, so the marginal benefit of transmission reduction that the vaccine gives is also irrelevant

The benefits therefore are all to the government, not the RAH.

Let's not kid ourselves, the RAH would not have started asking & enforcing vaccine (/covid) status without the government's framework and constant "nudge" messaging about it. This is one of my big issues generally with the covid response - we're asking people who are good at "general" H&S to make decisions on epidemiology, often with little guidance from government and often plenty of contradictory messages to boot. The sheer amount of rules that have been introduced that fall apart when you think about them for more than a minute (or more than 5 seconds but with an epidemiological frame of reference) is testament to that

 

[35B]

I fail to see what benefit the RAH themselves gain from knowing your vaccine status

-They aren't a healthcare provider, so the primary benefit of vaccination (reduction in likelihood of infection/severity of symptoms) is irrelevant
-They won't get punished in the event of an outbreak originating on their premises, so the marginal benefit of transmission reduction that the vaccine gives is also irrelevant

The benefits therefore are all to the government, not the RAH.

Let's not kid ourselves, the RAH would not have started asking & enforcing vaccine (/covid) status without the government's framework and constant "nudge" messaging about it. This is one of my big issues generally with the covid response - we're asking people who are good at "general" H&S to make decisions on epidemiology, often with little guidance from government and often plenty of contradictory messages to boot. The sheer amount of rules that have been introduced that fall apart when you think about them for more than a minute (or more than 5 seconds but with an epidemiological frame of reference) is testament to that

The RAH's benefit is that they get an audience (no distancing this year) who are confident that they are in a "safe" space, and that their risk of being caught in a fuss over being at the heart of a "super spreader" event is reduced. Those aren't negligible benefits from their perspective. They also don't know my vaccine status - they make it a condition of entry that I demonstrate that I am either fully vaccinated or that I am not infected. It's a subtle but important difference.

My attitude is that I don't particularly care about confirming my vaccination status as a condition of entry; it didn't make any difference to my decision to book one way or the other, and it's not a disproportionate requirement. This isn't the thread for it, but I'm less delighted about the requirement (again, condition of booking rather than legally enforceable) to wear masks while in the building. As it's a 5pm performance, and Tristan und Isolde is not exactly known for brevity, that was not entirely welcome news.

 

[MikeWM]

The RAH's benefit is that they get an audience (no distancing this year) who are confident that they are in a "safe" space,

I can't help but feel there is something rather ironic about feeling the need to be in a 'safe' space to watch a performance of Tristan, but to be fair I also can't quite put my finger on what it is, so I'll have to mull on that some more.

Anyhow - whatever else we disagree on - if you like Wagner, we very much have that in common I saw Götterdämmerung at the Proms back in (I think) 2007, which was great, though it was *incredibly* hot and stuffy in the RAH in the middle of summer.

 

[dosxuk]

The use of the term "anti-vaccine protesters" is inaccurate and rather misleading. From the article it is clear that this is a protest against requirements for vaccination passports, not against vaccination.

It's more a demonstration of the value of doing research.

If they'd done some research they would have discovered where the BBC HQ was, as opposed to turning up at Television Centre, which is mostly flats and a couple of studios that ITV use. The BBC haven't been there since 2013 and other than the odd episode of Graham Norton (not produced by the BBC) or Mock the Week (also, not produced by the BBC), there's not been many BBC programmes from there either.

I hear they're aiming for ITV's HQ on the south bank next

 

[takno]

It's more a demonstration of the value of doing research.

If they'd done some research they would have discovered where the BBC HQ was, as opposed to turning up at Television Centre, which is mostly flats and a couple of studios that ITV use. The BBC haven't been there since 2013 and other than the odd episode of Graham Norton (not produced by the BBC) or Mock the Week (also, not produced by the BBC), there's not been many BBC programmes from there either.

I hear they're aiming for ITV's HQ on the south bank next

I did read that that was the line-to-take on the topic. Rather ignores the fact that there appears to have been another protest at broadcasting house. The protest in Shepherds Bush only got the airtime because that was the place where they successfully stormed a *checks notes* BBC facility, which is used to film a selection of BBC and ITV programmes.

Dunno if loose women was going out live at the time, but if it was then successfully storming the studio for that would have been quite a publicity coup.

I don't approve of the actions of this crowd, but I really don't get what the dwindling ranks of Twitterati think they are achieving by running off these cheap "everybody is stupid except for us" lines.