Vaccine Passports - currently being considered in Scotland & Wales

[takno]

For nightclubs it would be check against whatever is currently used to prove age!

For concerts it would again be whatever is currently used to prevent ticket touting — not all large concerts do it, but I’ve been to stadium/arena gigs where it happened. I don’t know how common it is, but it happened in 2016 for sure, so is not particularly new.

I haven't had to prove my age anywhere for a while, and I've never had to provide id to get into a concert or football match. The only viable proof of age I have is my passport, and I'm not dragging that round everywhere with me.

I think some people have rather set ideas of how these places and events work, often based on rather limited experience. In a lot of cases this is going to add inconvenience, and pretty unmanageable delays and confusion to the process of getting people through the doors, since it will involve doing a bunch of processing which just doesn't currently happen. The lower down the capacity/pecking order they choose to take it, the worse those issues will be

 

[yorkie]

...So I’m coming at it from the perspective of supporting anything which would protect NHS capacity for all the other stuff....

Not literally anything, surely?

So in simple terms, the longer it’s spreading for, and the greater the number of infections, the more chance that there will be more strains.

There is only one strain of Sars-CoV-2; you mean variants, which are much less of a concern.

While it is difficult to vaccinate against Influenza due to the existence of multiple stains, this problem does not occur with Sars-CoV-2.

The worry being that at some point, a new strain may be different enough that the immune system of those who have been vaccinated or who were infected by an earlier stain may not be as effective in recognising the virus and then the immune response will be less effective at first, leading to people becoming ill, and maybe death rates rising again.

The vaccines will remain effective because one of the most important defences we have is through T cells; the T cell epitopes are not changing, so our T cell response does not alter by variant.

There is a lot of hysteria about a reduction in antibody effectiveness, which really means more people are able to be infected as the virus adapts and improves its fitness to infect human cells; it does not mean the vaccines become ineffective.

If enough people are vaccinated, the thinking is that this should both reduce the ability of the virus to replicate and spread.

This is true; most infections in the UK are currently in unvaccinated people, despite the majority of the population being vaccinated. Clearly therefore vaccination reduces the ability of the virus to replicate and spread (but does not stop it).

Meanwhile as more people are vaccinated, the number of people who get ill and require hospital treatment will fall. Certainly, the last part is indeed happening.

Yes and this is the most important thing.

As far as I can see, hospitals are reporting that the vast majority of people who they are treating for this virus, are people who have not been vaccinated.

Absolutely; this virus is going to continue to spread and we are all going to get it. The question is: do we want to arm our immune systems ready for battle, or let them be surprised and hope our immune system doesn't struggle? Most people will get away without being vaccinated and only have mild symptoms, but a small proportion will not and will become seriously ill.

If (say) 4 million adults refuse to get vaccinated and only 0.4% of them became seriously ill, that's still a lot of people becoming seriously ill, hence it is important that people give serious thought to getting vaccinated. But it should be people making this choice themselves for the right reasons rather than it be forced upon them.

Note that I’m not a biologist and I don’t have any medical training, so I may not have all the details above completely correct. If I do have anything wrong, I welcome corrections.

Hopefully you will welcome mine I am not a biologist either, but I can link you to some sources I find useful if that helps

 

[Yew]

Annetts key described why, on the previous page.

What I perhaps didn’t explain in my post above was that right now I only think we need them for international travel, not for anything else. I’d only support them for nightclubs and football matches etc *IF* vaccines get proven to massively reduce transmission. If they only reduce transmission by 10% then the restrictions aren’t worthwhile.

Remember that even if vaccines are effective in preventing transmission, that doesn't necessarily mean that vaccine passports are also effective as a public health intervention.

 

[bramling]

Remember that even if vaccines are effective in preventing transmission, that doesn't necessarily mean that vaccine passports are also effective as a public health intervention.

They could be counter-productive if it means queues form for entry to places. It also perpetuates the ghastly pre-booking / timed slots for admissions to places which we’ve seen over the last 18 months, which personally I despise, and was hoping we would be moving quickly away from.

 

[MikeWM]

If this were true, which I severely doubt, cui bono (who benefits)? Certainly not the government or the country, which spent billions on Covid-19 countermeasures and vaccines.

Well, who benefits from the Chinese social credit system? The state, of course.

It gets a totally unprecedented level of information about the lives of its citizens, and a totally unprecedented level of control over those citizens, who need to follow what the government dictates in order to continue living a relatively normal existence. The citizens self-censor and dare not criticise or protest or do anything against the proclaimed interests of the government, as the government can cut off their 'privileges' (formally known as 'inalienable freedoms' or 'rights') at a stroke.

The result is an orderly and fearful society that is anything but 'free' and goes along with government dictat, however arbitrary. What government wouldn't prefer that?

As for the money angle, which I guess is perhaps your point - I'm sure there are many lucrative contracts in there for friends of the government, in running and enforcing such a system. And big business would pay big money for some of those massive datasets. Though after the last 18 months, I don't think the money angle passes the 'sniff' test anyway - the government clearly don't care anymore about what vast sums are spent or where it is going.

Let's reverse the question for a moment. The current 'plan' for 'vaccine passports' will allow people who have been vaccinated but still have the disease to go into a venue and spread the disease to everyone around. It will *not*, however, allow people who have not been vaccinated but have been proven, via a test, to not have the disease, to enter that same venue.

Who benefits from that policy? It couldn't be more obvious that it isn't about public health - so what *is* it about?

 

[bramling]

Well, who benefits from the Chinese social credit system? The state, of course.

It gets a totally unprecedented level of information about the lives of its citizens, and a totally unprecedented level of control over those citizens, who need to follow what the government dictates in order to continue living a relatively normal existence. The citizens self-censor and dare not criticise or protest or do anything against the proclaimed interests of the government, as the government can cut off their 'privileges' (formally known as 'inalienable freedoms' or 'rights') at a stroke.

The result is an orderly and fearful society that is anything but 'free' and goes along with government dictat, however arbitrary. What government wouldn't prefer that?

As for the money angle, which I guess is perhaps your point - I'm sure there are many lucrative contracts in there for friends of the government, in running and enforcing such a system. And big business would pay big money for some of those massive datasets. Though after the last 18 months, I don't think the money angle passes the 'sniff' test anyway - the government clearly don't care anymore about what vast sums are spent or where it is going.

Let's reverse the question for a moment. The current 'plan' for 'vaccine passports' will allow people who have been vaccinated but still have the disease to go into a venue and spread the disease to everyone around. It will *not*, however, allow people who have not been vaccinated but have been proven, via a test, to not have the disease, to enter that same venue.

Who benefits from that policy? It couldn't be more obvious that it isn't about public health - so what *is* it about?

With this government, the what is it about could just as easily be that Boris thought it was a good idea that morning so decided to run with it!

 

[Bikeman78]

Annetts key described in far more detail why I supported them initially. If the vaccines are proven to reduce transmission by say 50% or more I would fully support them again too.

I had cancer treatment delayed for months due to lack of capacity caused by Covid-19. (I’m OK now, have finally had all treatment, hoping to get “all clear” in four years. But that delay will always play on my mind.) So I’m coming at it from the perspective of supporting anything which would protect NHS capacity for all the other stuff. I don’t actually care if random adults get infected now, that’s their choice. They’ve all had the opportunity to get vaccinated. But I do care about what happens if I need life-saving hospital treatment again or if my friends/family do. Not to mention all the other hospital treatment required in that massive backlog too.

I'm still not convinced that passports will make any difference. Most people are vaccinated so banning a few people from nightclubs or theatres isn't going to make or break the NHS. Likewise anyone who has declined the vaccine so far is unlikely to change their mind now.

 

[MikeWM]

With this government, the what is it about could just as easily be that Boris thought it was a good idea that morning so decided to run with it!

But how could 'libertarian' 'eat my ID card' Johnson ever come to the conclusion that it is a good idea?

Whatever else he is, he isn't thick. He knows full well what he's doing.

 

[DustyBin]

Another point worth mentioning is, will venues where vaccine passports be required to check the vaccine certificate against photo ID? (In order to ensure that the person presenting the vaccine passport is the person named on the vaccine passport)

If so, what forms of photo ID will be acceptable, given that it is not mandatory to possess either a driving licence or a passport?

Or will we be in a position where some venues will check the QR code/PDF file/piece of paper against photo ID, and other venues will just check the "COVID Pass"?

Heaven help us if the COVID Pass has to be checked against photo ID, and then the scope is widened to more everyday venues such as pubs, non essential retail and long distance public transport.

People will then have to carry photo ID almost everywhere they go, which is like introducing compulsory identity cards by the back door.

The obvious answer (to me at least) is that a photograph (and other personal information I expect) will be incorporated into the vaccine passport. Job done; without the majority of people realising it, we have ID cards….

I may of course be wrong, but I’m increasingly confident that this is where we’re heading. I’ve certainly not heard any compelling argument to the contrary.

 

[takno]

But how could 'libertarian' 'eat my ID card' Johnson ever come to the conclusion that it is a good idea?

Whatever else he is, he isn't thick. He knows full well what he's doing.

I'd very much dispute that.

 

[MikeWM]

I'd very much dispute that.

I should probably have been a little more specific and said something like 'he knows full well what the introduction of vaccine passports means for individual freedom and the balance between the individual and the state'. Whether he has a clue about specifics or details is another matter - probably not!

Incidentally, I think we have a clear answer at this point to those asking how things would have been different under Corbyn. In other ways things may have been rather worse over the last 18 months, but I'm fairly certain that Corbyn would never have introduced this sort of thing.

 

[35B]

I should probably have been a little more specific and said something like 'he knows full well what the introduction of vaccine passports means for individual freedom and the balance between the individual and the state'. Whether he has a clue about specifics or details is another matter - probably not!

Incidentally, I think we have a clear answer at this point to those asking how things would have been different under Corbyn. In other ways things may have been rather worse over the last 18 months, but I'm fairly certain that Corbyn would never have introduced this sort of thing.

I'm not. There's a command and control element to his side of the left, and I'd not have been surprised if the policies would have been significantly more restrictive than they were/are.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm not. There's a command and control element to his side of the left, and I'd not have been surprised if the policies would have been significantly more restrictive than they were/are.

For the most part I agree - indeed I said 'things may have been rather worse' - but on the specific issue of 'vaccine passports', Corbyn would have been opposed, as he was to Blair's ID cards. Indeed it is him and the 30-or-so rump of MPs who still associate with him that are leading the current opposition from the left, while Starmer seems - incredibly - to struggle to come up with a policy stance on the issue.

 

[DustyBin]

For the most part I agree - indeed I said 'things may have been rather worse' - but on the specific issue of 'vaccine passports', Corbyn would have been opposed, as he was to Blair's ID cards. Indeed it is him and the 30-or-so rump of MPs who still associate with him that are leading the current opposition from the left, while Starmer seems - incredibly - to struggle to come up with a policy stance on the issue.

I think the question is one of how much control Corbyn actually had over his own party. I suspect he would personally have been opposed but I’m not convinced the net result would have been much different to what we have now. I may be wrong; I guess we’ll never know!

 

[35B]

For the most part I agree - indeed I said 'things may have been rather worse' - but on the specific issue of 'vaccine passports', Corbyn would have been opposed, as he was to Blair's ID cards. Indeed it is him and the 30-or-so rump of MPs who still associate with him that are leading the current opposition from the left, while Starmer seems - incredibly - to struggle to come up with a policy stance on the issue.

That's where I'm not convinced - I think it's an open question how they'd have responded on that issue had they held power.

 

[MikeWM]

I think the question is one of how much control Corbyn actually had over his own party. I suspect he would personally have been opposed but I’m not convinced the net result would have been much different to what we have now. I may be wrong; I guess we’ll never know!

Yes - I think it is quite likely in that scenario that he would have been replaced by now - one way or another - by someone more acceptable to the PLP.

 

[35B]

Yes - I think it is quite likely in that scenario that he would have been replaced by now - one way or another - by someone more acceptable to the PLP.

If we're heading down that track, my money would have been on McDonnell - someone interested in power, rather than just protest. And I certainly have no confidence that a McDonnell led government would be any great respecter of citizen's rights over the state.

 

[Yew]

If we're heading down that track, my money would have been on McDonnell - someone interested in power, rather than just protest. And I certainly have no confidence that a McDonnell led government would be any great respecter of citizen's rights over the state.

I struggle to see the papers giving a labour government an easy time over “Comrade Corbyns a Chinese communist coronavirus curbs”

 

[MikeWM]

If we're heading down that track, my money would have been on McDonnell - someone interested in power, rather than just protest. And I certainly have no confidence that a McDonnell led government would be any great respecter of citizen's rights over the state.

The PLP would have wanted McDonnell even less than they did Corbyn! I rather like McDonnell, but I agree that I'm less convinced about him sticking to his principles than I am with Corbyn. Nevertheless, most of the PLP would have hated his guts as leader.

My suspicion is that the PLP would have forced a leadership election and effectively threatened the membership to elect someone they found acceptable - or they'd walk en masse from the party. It's a general problem many modern political parties have when the membership lean one way and the MPs another - I'm not sure what the best answer to that is, really.

 

[35B]

I struggle to see the papers giving a labour government an easy time over “Comrade Corbyns a Chinese communist coronavirus curbs”

That particular nonsense line would have depended somewhat on how things had gone up to now.

The PLP would have wanted McDonnell even less than they did Corbyn! I rather like McDonnell, but I agree that I'm less convinced about him sticking to his principles than I am with Corbyn. Nevertheless, most of the PLP would have hated his guts as leader.

My suspicion is that the PLP would have forced a leadership election and effectively threatened the membership to elect someone they found acceptable - or they'd walk en masse from the party. It's a general problem many modern political parties have when the membership lean one way and the MPs another - I'm not sure what the best answer to that is, really.

The difference is that McDonnell, hated though he is, would have had the cold blooded determination to wield power. With the power of patronage, and being able to say "there's a crisis", I think the politics would have played out differently.

 

[MikeWM]

There was an urgent question on this subject yesterday in the House of Commons, which can be read here if you have a strong stomach for such things.

In brief:

- The Government say that they really, really don't want to do this, but they're going to do it anyway. ('I will begin by saying to the House that no one in this Government, and certainly not this Prime Minister—it is not in his DNA—wants to curtail people’s freedoms or require people to show a piece of paper before they enter a nightclub.').

More classic abuser tactics. Well, either that, or someone else is pulling their strings. Odd to see this said so explicitly.


- They rule out any requirement for use for 'essential services'. ('I can assure her that some essential services will not require people to show covid vaccine certification. They include settings that have stayed open throughout the pandemic, such as public sector buildings, essential retail, essential services and, of course, public transport.')

Whether you believe that or not probably depends on whether you believe anything else they've said recently. The track record on that isn't so great!

Note also that there are a large category of things that they *aren't* therefore ruling out. I'd therefore expect this to be extended at the least to pretty much everything not on that list, and quite possibly some things on it too, by November or so.


- The intent would be temporary. ('This is not something that we enter into lightly, but it is part of our armoury to help us transition over the winter months from pandemic to endemic status. I hope to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box very soon after that and be able to share with the House that we do not need to do this any more as we will be dealing with the virus through an annual vaccination programme.')

Of course they'd say that. Many such things start out temporary and end up rather less so. ('Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program' - and if you'd told me 2 years ago I'd be quoting Milton Friedman, I doubt I'd have believed you, but here we are).


- They confirmed that it would be vaccine-only, not allowing the option of a test. ('One of the issues around lateral flow tests is the risk of people fraudulently inputting their test result, but also those are for a single excursion whereas being double-vaccinated means that people can go and enjoy nightclubs as many times as they like.')

Some may argue that really doesn't answer the question of why vaccinated people, who may have the disease and pass it on, are less likely to be an issue than someone who has (non-fraudulently) completed a test and so we know they don't have the disease.


- The question of whether there would be any vote on this was repeatedly ducked. ('I have said that there will be parliamentary scrutiny around this, and we will be coming back and setting out in detail what that looks like.')

Which is interesting, and may imply they don't intend to bring forward primary legislation, instead relying on PHA 1984 emergency regulations, as they have for most of this?


- There was a lot of criticism from Tory back-benchers. ('What a load of rubbish. I do not believe that my hon. Friend believes a word he just uttered', 'This is a pointless policy with damaging effects.', 'Isn’t the super-spreader event the spread of illiberal, discriminatory and coercive policies from this Dispatch Box?', 'The measures presented by the Minister today are unsupportable because they are bereft of any rationale.', 'I am flabbergasted, depressed and annoyed that we are even discussing this matter. It is absolutely wrong on a fundamental level.')

Which constitutes some of the strongest criticism I've ever seen of a government policy from its own side in a discussion in Parliament. Whether it makes any difference or not - I suspect not a lot, unfortunately. The SNP look ready to support the idea (or at least, not oppose it) as long as it is similar to the Scottish plan, so the government are likely to win any vote on it however many backbenchers vote against (or whatever decision Labour finally decide to make).

 

[NorthOxonian]

There was an urgent question on this subject yesterday in the House of Commons, which can be read here if you have a strong stomach for such things.

It just makes me despondent. The opposition in that debate gave so many clear reasons why this policy will not work - and yet it's basically certain to go through. It just feels like there's nothing anyone can do.

At least my home and university MP are both very firmly opposed to this - I'm not a huge fan of either but I'll give them a lot of credit here.

 

[Eyersey468]

It just makes me despondent. The opposition in that debate gave so many clear reasons why this policy will not work - and yet it's basically certain to go through. It just feels like there's nothing anyone can do.

At least my home and university MP are both very firmly opposed to this - I'm not a huge fan of either but I'll give them a lot of credit here.

And me, though to be fair to him my MP is also firmly opposed to this as well. I simply don't believe a word this government says about their intentions for it to be temporary, only certain things covered by it etc.

 

[MikeWM]

My MP is the solicitor-general in the government, so there's zero point in even trying to write to her about it.

Any system of government tends to have many problems, but the lack of separation of powers between the executive and the legislature in our government is really really poor. It's a dictatorship waiting to happen, basically.

 

[Cdd89]

- They rule out any requirement for use for 'essential services'.

The rub will be the definition of essential services. France deemed supermarkets within shopping centres, and long-distance train travel, as non-essential.

('One of the issues around lateral flow tests is the risk of people fraudulently inputting their test result, but also those are for a single excursion whereas being double-vaccinated means that people can go and enjoy nightclubs as many times as they like.')

I think this is a weak argument. There’s no reason why the test cannot be supervised (in the endless “community test centres” currently doing nothing, or via video call) if fraud is supposedly such a huge issue.

 

[DelayRepay]

And me, though to be fair to him my MP is also firmly opposed to this as well. I simply don't believe a word this government says about their intentions for it to be temporary,

It will be temporary. Just like Income Tax, introduced in 1842 was temporary...

 

[joncombe]

- They rule out any requirement for use for 'essential services'. ('I can assure her that some essential services will not require people to show covid vaccine certification. They include settings that have stayed open throughout the pandemic, such as public sector buildings, essential retail, essential services and, of course, public transport.')

Aren't airlines already asking for proof? Aren't airlines public transport?

 

[Eyersey468]

It will be temporary. Just like Income Tax, introduced in 1842 was temporary...

Exactly my point

 

[87electric]

It will be temporary. Just like Income Tax, introduced in 1842 was temporary...

Along those lines, the USA has been in a temporary state of national emergency since 9/11. 20 years!
Once there is a foot in the door some things never get dialled back. But it's all for the greater good they say. Absolute tosh. Unless challenged, like the Blair ID episode, authorities will continue nudging towards a more unpleasant existence.

 

[island]

Aren't airlines already asking for proof? Aren't airlines public transport?

I don’t think airlines are, in Europe at least, but some of the destinations to which they fly may do.