Of course, a vaccine passport would involve a disclosure of information. An amendment to the GDPR act could make it illegal for businesses to routinely ask for such details.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
When will restrictions finally end?
- Thread starter Huntergreed
- Start date
- Status
Of course, a vaccine passport would involve a disclosure of information. An amendment to the GDPR act could make it illegal for businesses to routinely ask for such details.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
...or it could explicitly make it legal to ask for such intrusive personal details as a "proportionate" response to the risk of Covid. Which strikes you as the more likely amendment?
I think that if the Government were happy about businesses asking for people to show their vaccination status, they'd probably avoid further controversy by amending GDPR.
Bantamzen
Established Member
They've put in £75K towards the app?
Britons who have received Covid jab 'will be offered vaccine passport'
Though the Department of Health said there were 'no plans' to introduce vaccine passports, its science and research funding agency has already pumped £75,000 into the project.www.dailymail.co.uk
Here we go again wonder the over 80’s will feel about showing a smart phone?
Phew that's a relief, that won't even pay for the dozen Teams calls to discuss the agenda for setting up the committee to decide the agenda for the start-up....
Once case numbers are lower and a good percentage of the population are vaccinated then restrictions like lockdowns can be eased. The fewer people who opt not to take up the vaccine then the sooner restrictions can be rolled back (note that doesn't include those who have a medical reason not to be vaccinated).
The current worry is of too many people decide that they don't want the vaccine. If there's anyone with such thoughts, what's the reason?
For instance there's those who are worried about "no evidence that extending the gap between doses provides long term protection", well there's no evidence that is safe to be alive tomorrow just because no one has studied it. That's very different to there's the potential for harm because of.... type statements.
To put it another way "there's no evidence of life on other planets" does that statement mean that scientists will be shocked when we find life elsewhere, certainly not as they all know that there almost certainly will be some (mostly not intelligent life before you get excited about aliens making contact with us).
In the same way would scientists be surprised if there's good protection from the vaccines after a gap of up to 80 days, almost certainly not, they just don't have any data on the subject and there's been no trails (i.e. where the people doing it know that there's a risk, rather than everyone, and so there's an element of is what's being done within the rules of what's ethical).
Therefore if we reduce hospital numbers by 25% but increase the overall numbers of cases by a small amount we still end up with the same amount of hospital bed occupation.
Let's say we've got a ward of 100 beds, currently someone who dies does so after 7 days and we reduce the deaths from 30 to 5 (reduction in hospital time of 175 days) however if someone in hospital who recovers takes up a bed for 10 days and the rates continue to increase then you only need 18 extra in hospital for the hospital to be in the same position.
If the risk of going to hospital is 1:100 then you'd only need an extra 1,800 cases over a 10 day window. Assuming 700/100,000 cases currently that's only going to need to rise to ~1,100/100,000 (assuming 200,000 people per hospital)
Vaccine passports wouldn't necessarily work the way that those who want them expect them to work.
For starters even having had the vaccine you should wait at least 2 weeks (ideally 3) after the second dose before you've got full protection. Even then for every 100 people about 10 will still get Covid-19 and potentially be able to pass it on.
Therefore, at least until case numbers are much lower, everyone needs to behave as of they are aren't vaccinated. Especially with regards to limiting the numbers of people they interact with as surface transmission may still be an issue (a vaccine doesn't stop you passing it on by shaking hands with one person who's just rubbed their eyes and has Covid-19 and then 2 minutes later shaking hands with someone else who then rubs their eyes).
A vaccine passport would still mean checking in at venues, is just that you'd use a different app. You may not have to self isolate, although good practice would still recommend that you do, but beyond that there'll be very little difference for now as so few people have had the vaccine.
In time it may allow you to act one tier lower than your are, however only with those who are also vaccinated, but certainly whist there's a need for restrictions to get case numbers down there's going to be little benefit in having been vaccinated.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
We received a telephone call yesterday informing us that my 79 year-old wife with Vascular Dementia who still lives at home with me has been given a 15.10 appointment to attend for a anti Viral first injection. No mention was made about me, a mere 75 years of age with "all his marbles at home".
Last edited:
DustyBin
Established Member
Personally I’d rather wait a year or two. Covid-19 poses very little risk to me statistically so I see no reason not to wait until the full effects of the vaccine(s) are understood.
This is quite a useful article that briefly explains where we are at in terms of vaccine approval. I’ve quoted the section that underpins my reasoning:
Vaccinating the UK: how the covid vaccine was approved, and other questions answered
The momentous news that the first covid-19 vaccine had been approved in the UK has prompted questions about how it was authorised and will be delivered. The BMJ spoke to experts to find out the answers The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency gave temporary authorisation to the...
initiation
Member
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 432
Unless I'm missing something your point is only valid if we assume all age groups have the same likelyhood of hospitalisation. However that is totally not the case. Younger people have a tiny chance of suffering any significant illness.
I'm honestly fed up of people moving the goal posts. Now we will only start to roll back restrictions once millions are vacinated. If those at lower risk wish to continue putting their lives on hold while they wait for a vaccine then that is fine. Just don't impose it on the rest of us.
We HAVE to get back to normality this summer (not 'the new normal') otherwise restrictions will inevitably roll over into next winter 'just in case'.
It was a similar story with my Grandparents. 92 year old grandmother was offered her first dose about a week before Christmas, but 86 year old grandfather wasn't (unsurprisingly given he's notionally a priority group lower) - but when it was explained to them that she basically isn't leaving the house whereas he's popping out weekly to do the shopping, they were able to give him his at the same time (at least, that's the story)
Might be worth asking them, and possibly just going along if you aren't taking her for the appointment yourself. Certainly earlier in the rollout they were basically giving it to anyone who showed up and was "close enough" in a priority group to prevent wastage in the event of no-shows, etc. Hope you're able to get it soon by whatever means
Sounds like Sturgeon may be introducing some extra restrictions in Scotland today, which guarantees Johnson will do the same a couple of days later and Hancock has basically admitted the lockdown isn't going anywhere soon
I don't remember signing up to be an actor in the 1993 film Groundhog Day!
I don't remember signing up to be an actor in the 1993 film Groundhog Day!
Yes I won’t be in a hurry for the vaccine either I don’t think it should be forced. Home kit Saliva testing should be an alternative for the so called app show a negative result you enter the venue. Otherwise nothing if COVID levels drop below flu I don’t see how it could overwhelm the nhs? It should be a be choice no discrimination we should be able to weigh up the covid risk vs vaccine risk or no vaccine and decide if we need it. If you are goes that and want and to continue that should be your choice. This is why I have extreme anxiety we are living under these restrictions and they may make them long term if you don’t have the vaccine.
How did you calculate this figure?
heenan73
Member
"
I know. You'll never see it, you'll never understand. And you'll come out with twaddle like "face masks don't make a jot of difference". Of course they do. They aren't magic; they aren't full PPE - but they (obviously) reduce the risk of you getting infected by someone else's cough/yawn/shout (or you infecting them). Wear one and learn how long two metres is, and we'd be much better off.
When will restrictions finally end?"
When you people stick to the rules and the pandemic dies away. You can't compromise with disease; either you lockdown hard and do what has to be done, (New Zealand; restrictions now lifted) or you mess about doing just enough to stop hospitals bursting, and it drags on forever (UK; 10 months out, highest figures since Day 1). And while you are messing about, business - including the railways - is in limbo, with no way to plan, no way to really get going. Because all you 'let's get the economy going' people are also getting the virus to spread people.I know. You'll never see it, you'll never understand. And you'll come out with twaddle like "face masks don't make a jot of difference". Of course they do. They aren't magic; they aren't full PPE - but they (obviously) reduce the risk of you getting infected by someone else's cough/yawn/shout (or you infecting them). Wear one and learn how long two metres is, and we'd be much better off.
Last edited:
Bantamzen
Established Member
Frankly that image above is nothing short of laughable, but demonstrates the complete lack of scientific evidence that masks have any effect in reducing spread in public scenarios. Because if there was credible evidence, nonsense like that wouldn't be needed.
It does feel like there is a subset of society that can't think above simplistic solutions, just because something makes sense at first glance, doesn't mean it's right. The world looks pretty flat, but that doesn't mean it is.
All of these studies that look at source control, seem to completely omit the ballistic arcs of the droplets, we need to stop them getting in peoples mouths and eyes, not falling onto their trousers and t-shirt. The proportional minute-of-angle is minuscule even from 1m away, so the droplets never really had a chance.
All of these studies that look at source control, seem to completely omit the ballistic arcs of the droplets, we need to stop them getting in peoples mouths and eyes, not falling onto their trousers and t-shirt. The proportional minute-of-angle is minuscule even from 1m away, so the droplets never really had a chance.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 18,876
We look to be looking at a few hundred thousand dead overall and about 90% of them being pensioners.
So if the pensioners are protected death rates will be in the tens of thousands, less those who are already dead obviously.
roversfan2001
Established Member
Are you able to provide any credible sources that say that masks make a difference?
People stuck to the rules last spring and summer (not 100% but the vast majority). Did the pandemic die away? Clearly not, otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess we're in. The sooner people realise that you can not beat a respiratory virus, the better.
Covid-19: We can make this the peak by following rules, says Hancock
The health secretary urges people to follow rules, saying "individual decisions" make a difference.
www.bbc.co.uk
Well there you have it
What does he mean by "We can make this the peak" given cases have already peaked?Covid-19: We can make this the peak by following rules, says Hancock
The health secretary urges people to follow rules, saying "individual decisions" make a difference.
Well there you have it
heenan73
Member
The picture is needed because most covidiots wouldn't understand the science.
And if you actually look at at it , I'm sure you'll eventually understand the message. Persevere!
That’s true given we are in lockdown I can’t see how cases could possibly go above 60,000 again given they are falling?
Bantamzen
Established Member
How about some actual science instead of the rhetoric?
heenan73
Member
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=Face+masks+COVID-19
If that's not enough for you, you can probably find more by varying the search term.
HINT: Surgeons haven't been wearing face masks for the past 100 years for fun.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
See above.
Bantamzen
Established Member
There's no science there, just a silly, irrelevant meme.
heenan73
Member
roversfan2001
Established Member
The difference between surgeons wearing a medical grade mask in a strictly controlled medical setting and Joe Public wearing a bit of fabric round his face in Tesco is huge and you'd be naive to think otherwise.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There's 10,900 items on that link; I'm not doing your research for you, you can find the relevant studies.
We just need to make all the same mistakes again, but harder so they cause more suffering.
I literally have a Ph.D in droplets, I'd daresay that I know a little bit more than you about this subject. However I'm sure you can appreciate the target size, we only care about droplets that interact with the mucosal membranes (eyes, mouth) of another individual, that's a really small target to hit in the first place. Hence why the effect of source control is so small that it's not making any difference.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Before you start post search results you may want to start reading this currently locked thread, you'll find that the "evidence" that masks work outside of medically controlled environments is not there. Its been discussed time and again on these forums.
UK face coverings discussion
As face coverings are now mandatory in most public indoor settings from today in most of the UK, this thread has been set up to continue the general discussion of this issue. thanks
www.railforums.co.uk
Its a long thread, so make a brew and take your time.
I don't disagree with your overall point about face masks. I've been using them as a precautionary measure since the first lockdown (whilst acknowledging the imperfection of the science).
I disagree that ever more draconian measures achieve much.
"locking down hard" in most cases only seems to achieve a peak later on, unless as a country you manage to hermetically seal yourselves off from the outside world. There seems to be minimal understanding of which restrictions have what effect. The current peak, that we're all worried about seems to have potentially resulted from a number of issues, including xmas mixing of households indoors, the new strain etc, yet I'm stuck with not being able to travel to go for an oudoor walk with my friends. I'm just not convinced that the ever more draconian lockdown measures make the difference, and what's more, SAGE etc seem to have nothing to back up such assertions either. When they do attempt to quanitfy transmission, it usually highlights the same settings - home, work, education etc, none of which are affected by the lockdown measures.
- Status