Vaccine/Health Passports
Discussion
Sorry - I know it's another 'Covid' thread, but the potential impact of this perhaps warrants some specific consideration, I think.
After months of the government saying they will not adopt this route, we now have Gove looking into the possibility. My main concerns are:
1 - Data security. Who looks after this and monitors it. Who has access?
2 - Scope creep. Once this is done and implemented, what next? Passport cancelled if next year's dose is not administered? Is it a back-door route into a Chinese-style 'social credit system'?
3 - It may start with a few theatres/cinemas, etc... but where will it end up? The first step into a segregated society? We've seen that before.
4 - Employment. No jab/no job? Already rumours and stories circulating, of course.
5 - The main one. What happens to personal choice regarding what is put into your own body once this is accepted? As per (1), will the 'passport' be denied unless you keep complying and accepting new regulations? We do not do this for any other disease/virus (incuding AIDS, etc), so why this.
It's just the part of a horrendous slippery slope to me. I'm not anti-vax, but am definitely pro-choice, especially with regard to medical procedures on my own body. IMHO an honest government would be pushing a Bill to actively stop businesses introducing this (if you've had the vaccine, why would you be so scared of someone who hasn't anyway?)... but I just don't see them doing that.
After months of the government saying they will not adopt this route, we now have Gove looking into the possibility. My main concerns are:
1 - Data security. Who looks after this and monitors it. Who has access?
2 - Scope creep. Once this is done and implemented, what next? Passport cancelled if next year's dose is not administered? Is it a back-door route into a Chinese-style 'social credit system'?
3 - It may start with a few theatres/cinemas, etc... but where will it end up? The first step into a segregated society? We've seen that before.
4 - Employment. No jab/no job? Already rumours and stories circulating, of course.
5 - The main one. What happens to personal choice regarding what is put into your own body once this is accepted? As per (1), will the 'passport' be denied unless you keep complying and accepting new regulations? We do not do this for any other disease/virus (incuding AIDS, etc), so why this.
It's just the part of a horrendous slippery slope to me. I'm not anti-vax, but am definitely pro-choice, especially with regard to medical procedures on my own body. IMHO an honest government would be pushing a Bill to actively stop businesses introducing this (if you've had the vaccine, why would you be so scared of someone who hasn't anyway?)... but I just don't see them doing that.
Electro1980 said:
I think anti-vaxers are stupid, everyone who can should have the vaccine and anyone not is being incredibly selfish and I haven’t heard a single sensible argument not to have it, as you will see from my discussions on other threads...
BBBUUUUTTTT
I think vaccine “passports” and proof of vaccine status to do quite normal and basic things, against what will become a recurring, endemic illness, is a huge over reach, a massive abuse and a direct attack on basic human rights and liberties.
Can't argue with any of that... and some of the anti-vax stuff is just odd. I do worry that after the year we've had some people will be grateful to accept the poisoned carrot, though, and we're heading on a path that is incredibly dangerous. BBBUUUUTTTT
I think vaccine “passports” and proof of vaccine status to do quite normal and basic things, against what will become a recurring, endemic illness, is a huge over reach, a massive abuse and a direct attack on basic human rights and liberties.
If I put my cynical coat on, it's not hard to see another one of the government's chosen companies to find something else we need to have injected to keep the 'passport' - and we'll pay in more than just financially for it.
p1stonhead said:
We do it for some diseases. Or rather some of the world requires it.
Ever tried to go somewhere abroad without the required vaccinations for that particular area? Yellow fever and the like?
No. You need your vaccination certificate.
It’s nothing new.
Why would it suddenly be this mythical ‘slippery slope’ that so many people seem to be terrified of?
I understand that. We had to have certain vaccinations to go to Africa a few decades ago. But we understood the risks/requirements... but a health passport for the cinema/theatre/pub/shop/job? In this country? Not acceptable in a democratic, 'free' society. Maybe for some truly deadly virus - then I'd understand it. But not for this.Ever tried to go somewhere abroad without the required vaccinations for that particular area? Yellow fever and the like?
No. You need your vaccination certificate.
It’s nothing new.
Why would it suddenly be this mythical ‘slippery slope’ that so many people seem to be terrified of?
Murph7355 said:
MikeT66 said:
Sorry - I know it's another 'Covid' thread, but the potential impact of this perhaps warrants some specific consideration, I think.
After months of the government saying they will not adopt this route, we now have Gove looking into the possibility. My main concerns are:
1 - Data security. Who looks after this and monitors it. Who has access?
2 - Scope creep. Once this is done and implemented, what next? Passport cancelled if next year's dose is not administered? Is it a back-door route into a Chinese-style 'social credit system'?
3 - It may start with a few theatres/cinemas, etc... but where will it end up? The first step into a segregated society? We've seen that before.
4 - Employment. No jab/no job? Already rumours and stories circulating, of course.
5 - The main one. What happens to personal choice regarding what is put into your own body once this is accepted? As per (1), will the 'passport' be denied unless you keep complying and accepting new regulations? We do not do this for any other disease/virus (incuding AIDS, etc), so why this.
It's just the part of a horrendous slippery slope to me. I'm not anti-vax, but am definitely pro-choice, especially with regard to medical procedures on my own body. IMHO an honest government would be pushing a Bill to actively stop businesses introducing this (if you've had the vaccine, why would you be so scared of someone who hasn't anyway?)... but I just don't see them doing that.
1) Who monitors things like NI numbers etc now?After months of the government saying they will not adopt this route, we now have Gove looking into the possibility. My main concerns are:
1 - Data security. Who looks after this and monitors it. Who has access?
2 - Scope creep. Once this is done and implemented, what next? Passport cancelled if next year's dose is not administered? Is it a back-door route into a Chinese-style 'social credit system'?
3 - It may start with a few theatres/cinemas, etc... but where will it end up? The first step into a segregated society? We've seen that before.
4 - Employment. No jab/no job? Already rumours and stories circulating, of course.
5 - The main one. What happens to personal choice regarding what is put into your own body once this is accepted? As per (1), will the 'passport' be denied unless you keep complying and accepting new regulations? We do not do this for any other disease/virus (incuding AIDS, etc), so why this.
It's just the part of a horrendous slippery slope to me. I'm not anti-vax, but am definitely pro-choice, especially with regard to medical procedures on my own body. IMHO an honest government would be pushing a Bill to actively stop businesses introducing this (if you've had the vaccine, why would you be so scared of someone who hasn't anyway?)... but I just don't see them doing that.
2) Social credits already exist. We have NI cards, few people choose to insist on seeing the physical one though.
3) I expect it to be most places ultimately. It seems logical to me. At least for a while.
4) As 3.
5) You have a choice. As others have noted before, not unlike a driving license. You don't have to have one. But if you don't some "freedoms" are denied you.
With "rights" come "responsibilities".
2) I'm on about the Chinese style social credit score. Given the lambasting that the government have received via Twitter/social media over the last year, I bet they'd love a bit of this. Say/write something critical? Deducted points, a la Black Mirror. We know how internet use links up via cookies, software, etc, and there's already the potential for the Track And Trace app to be modified, so where does this stop?
3) "At least for a while"? Come on... once it's forced into society, it is not getting withdrawn. The last year must have told you that, given the government's avoidance of parliamentary procedure and extensions of covid measures.
4) No jab/no job acceptable? Why? As a risk to work colleagues? As a former H&S Officer, I understand that risks must be measured, but I'd struggle to see why a medical procedure possibly against the individual's rights/beliefs is trumped by the working rights for another.
5) We're not talking about driving/getting a pilot's licence/scuba diving qualification. We are potentially talking about restriction of freedom of movement and access to services. I don't see it as the same thing at all.
Jasandjules said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
From whom?https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-...
DonRustone said:
Spoiler alert: This thread will go round in circles just like any other Covid/Vaccine/Winter Tyres/Auto vs Manual thread on PH; everyone has their opinion and very few of us are willing to reconsider, let alone change, our views.
Good luck to both sides
True... and I was aware that could be the case. Good luck to both sides
However, I do see this as being the new potential 'battleground' for civil rights/liberties, and likely to become more important as the vaccine rollout continues and signifies the 'end' of the initial covid measures. We've had massive curtailments of our rights "for the benefit of society" for a year now - this could impact those rights even more, and for longer. All IMHO, of course.
vixen1700 said:
In less than a year the public have been so demoralised, and brainwashed over this that they're screaming out for a compulsary drug that has no long-term testing from a government who have used so much spin on the figures to manipulate them.
Less than a year.
As I said earlier - this is my concern (or one of them! Less than a year.
). The last dangling carrot for a beaten down society. It will be tempting for a lot of people, I fear.
I can see Hancock in this role, too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUnhfvGdmmw
Mrr T said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
From a purely democratic point of view it would be an outrage to introduce such a policy without any mandate to do so. We dropped the idea of compulsory vaccinations in the late 19th century because the backlash was undermining trust in medicine in general and the medical profession has never clearly advocated such a policy. We let people make their own decisions for far more serious diseases which also have implications for others.
As recently as 2019 the idea was strongly resisted
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49975717
If certain companies want to introduce this soft compulsion then they have the right to do so, but the government should not be facilitating this with vaccine passports. Let companies develop private versions if they wish and make it voluntary for those people who wish to use them.
It seems a large majority favour some sort of passport. On that basis I would suggest it's correct for the government to create a system. Companies and individuals can choose to use it or not.As recently as 2019 the idea was strongly resisted
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49975717
If certain companies want to introduce this soft compulsion then they have the right to do so, but the government should not be facilitating this with vaccine passports. Let companies develop private versions if they wish and make it voluntary for those people who wish to use them.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Incidentally can you imagine the furore if a group of companies started asking the government facilitate an AIDS passport so they can open safely and let their customers engage with each other worry free.
Yes sure it's a small risk and mostly to certain groups, it can be easily mitigated in other ways, but our customers would feel much safer about it and it reduces the spread.
Interesting points - they had some chap on TalkRadio this morning spouting the opinion that Vaccine Passports could be a way of "boosting confidence" for people wanting to use theatres/pubs, etc. It's surprising, as (as far as I am aware) there hasn't yet been confirmed studies that the vaccine removes all risks anyway, so there would still be a risk in these places. If people really need a 'confidence boost' to facilitate their use of public areas then I think it is morally wrong to coerce others (and to potentially put others' health at risk) to pander to these 'needs'.Yes sure it's a small risk and mostly to certain groups, it can be easily mitigated in other ways, but our customers would feel much safer about it and it reduces the spread.
Electro1980 said:
What shocks me is seeing how excited people I know are about being vaccinated and how people I know are literally saying they are jealous of those who are already being vaccinated when they advertise their appointments on Facebook. These are healthy people in their 30s and 40s. Yet these people never get a flu vaccine as far as I know, or don’t advertise it in the same way if they do. Yet it is more of a risk to them.
Yes - seen similar posts on Mrs.T66's social media. It stinks of virtue signalling to me - the same as all those selfies showing their latest mask.WRT the passport system, I mentioned it to an IT geek friend last night. He said "watch out for blockchain - the technology is there to tie-in all sorts of stuff." I had a brief look, but it seems to be Bitcoin-related (or similar - my IT knowledge is a bit crap). He could be a purveyor of tinfoil millinery, though.
stuartmmcfc said:
I pop into this thread now and then and I don’t understand all the points and hope someone can explain.
I understand that no vaccine is 100% and you can still catch it.
I also understand that there’s been a relatively low uptake of the vaccine among BAME communities.
I also think I understand that the “young”” may not be as seriously affected by COVID.
What I’m not sure about is the opinion that “I’m young and healthy so my risk is low, so I won’t have the vaccine “. Surely if you do catch it and pass it on and if the recipient is hospitalised it does affect you both in the difficulty in accessing medical care if you need it and the NHS is overwhelmed, the increased tax burden to pay for it and the inconvenience if services you require are cancelled because of staff shortages because people are taking a week off to recover?
Someone please explain why the “it doesn’t really affect me so I won’t take it” are right? and I think they’re wrong IMO.
Well, we've never done this 'to look after others' thing before (or have it sold in that way). It may well be that this is the virus that changes a lot of that, so flu jabs/covid jabs perhaps could alter those perceptions. I still think it morally dubious to require others to take medical procedures in order to safeguard other peoples' health. As for accessing/over-burdening medical care, what about alcohol? High-fat foods? Driving? Do we need to stop all that, too? I understand that no vaccine is 100% and you can still catch it.
I also understand that there’s been a relatively low uptake of the vaccine among BAME communities.
I also think I understand that the “young”” may not be as seriously affected by COVID.
What I’m not sure about is the opinion that “I’m young and healthy so my risk is low, so I won’t have the vaccine “. Surely if you do catch it and pass it on and if the recipient is hospitalised it does affect you both in the difficulty in accessing medical care if you need it and the NHS is overwhelmed, the increased tax burden to pay for it and the inconvenience if services you require are cancelled because of staff shortages because people are taking a week off to recover?
Someone please explain why the “it doesn’t really affect me so I won’t take it” are right? and I think they’re wrong IMO.
The question, though, isn't the validity of vaccines (I think - generally - that they are a force for good, BTW), but the proposed policy of requiring documentation to access services, etc. that will be the new battleground once large swathes of the population have (voluntarily) taken up the vaccine, and the ethics of that.
stuartmmcfc said:
MikeT66 said:
. I still think it morally dubious to require others to take medical procedures in order to safeguard other peoples' health. As for accessing/over-burdening medical care, what about alcohol? High-fat foods? Driving? Do we need to stop all that, too?
Well that’s where you and me differ. I think it’s morally suspect NOT to take a medical procedure to protect other people’s health.Also I don’t think Alcohol abuse etc has caused staff to be taken off other duties and cancellation of routine procedures because of a huge increase in cases like has happened in Leicester in the past year. Unfortunately I dont have a link for this lust based on first hand experience and reports from people I know.
Each to their own though we all have to do what we think best ??
).There have always been risks to others from personal actions/inaction. Why is this particular one being flagged as the most important and life-changing? If you believe in MMGW, then we are potentially directly impacting millions of lives across the planet. Get in a car and there's a possibility of killing a pedestrian (funnily enough, some moron stepped directly into the path of my car yesterday to avoid close contact with someone else on the footpath). Ever been to a motorsport event? It usually states on the ticket that you are there at 'your own risk'. If we use that analogy, then the drivers are putting me at risk, so they shouldn't be racing. Being involved in society is exactly the same - you are always there at your own risk. Purely the act of living (and that is living, not this current morose existence) will always put either others or yourself at risk. We simply cannot, nor should we ever, mandate a policy to safeguard everything in the world. What a dull, grey experience that would be.
I still maintain that a policy of 'Health passports is morally wrong... and (especially after this year and the behaviour of government, councils and the police) would be an endlessly moving requirement for further compliance.
menousername said:
Hopefully numbers keep dropping faster than the vaccine roll out so Govt cannot take credit for it by vaccinating everything that moves and we can get back to normal soon without these divisive, authoritarian policies
WFH but went out yesterday for first time in a while for some essential errands and apart from masks everything was busy and fairly normal looking. also made a point of turning off the news for a day. So refreshing. Its an echo chamber of doom. Step away from it and it seems so unnecessary.
Good points. I think there needs to be a balance on keeping up with the news, though - and it's a fine line. I certainly think the deluge of MSM doom-mongering (as opposed to the doom-mongering on these threads! WFH but went out yesterday for first time in a while for some essential errands and apart from masks everything was busy and fairly normal looking. also made a point of turning off the news for a day. So refreshing. Its an echo chamber of doom. Step away from it and it seems so unnecessary.
) can get tiresome and wearying. However, I think people need to be a little aware of government policies and actions (and potential ramifications of such) in order to keep educated and abreast of events. Hiding away from it doesn't make it not happen; you could easily find yourself in a Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy intergalactic bypass situation - "no-one told me that this was happening...!"CrutyRammers said:
Going to a shop, pub, restaurant, cinema or gig would be a starter for 10.
It (subtly at first, but surely) switches everything from innocent until proven guilty, to guilty until proven innocent. It reverses the fundamental principle that I can go where I want by default, and restrictions are only applied where proportionate and necessary, as special cases. The special case becomes the norm.
It's all fun and games then, until you forget your card or app, or someone enters something wrongly and computer says no, or these things become valuable so people start nicking them, doing phishing attacks, until the police start checking them on street corners because they can, until we criminalise people for not carrying or keeping them up to date.
Pretty much exactly how I feel. That's why it's a slippery slope - and we now have clear evidence from the last 12 months that those goalposts will move and move and move... and your little 'Freedom Pass' becomes harder to keep legitimate and up to date. 'Freedom Pass' - I know this is only one terminology that is being used, but it's abhorrent. The implication is we are jailed until we comply, and our jailers offer this Pass and our freedom as a favour. It's so fundamentally wrong that I'm amazed that people are even thinking it's remotely a good idea.It (subtly at first, but surely) switches everything from innocent until proven guilty, to guilty until proven innocent. It reverses the fundamental principle that I can go where I want by default, and restrictions are only applied where proportionate and necessary, as special cases. The special case becomes the norm.
It's all fun and games then, until you forget your card or app, or someone enters something wrongly and computer says no, or these things become valuable so people start nicking them, doing phishing attacks, until the police start checking them on street corners because they can, until we criminalise people for not carrying or keeping them up to date.
Does anyone know when Gove finishes his 'study' into the implementation? I think if the government still need to actively challenge any business trying to implement this through discriminatory law, rather than simply doing a Pontius Pilate and washing their hands of the whole thing and pretending it's not their doing.
As posted in the 'Worse Than The Disease' thread:
... herded into position before the gate closes. Frustrating, as many seem blind to the dangers. Those dangers may not come to fruition, but they are there. It seems to be a constant nibbling, a bit here, a bit there, all the time pushing us one way. As posted by the Libertarian Party...
... this seems to be gettiing uncomfortably close. I fear that if this is happening, we won't realise it until the gate has indeed closed, and suddenly the table are turned; our freedoms are now only properly available as an offering from the state for meek compliance.
RSTurboPaul said:
This has probably already been linked to, but Merkel openly states in this announcement that they are developing Vaccine Passports - which should take three months - and that in time, 'all member states' will introduce Digital ID that allows 'travel with more information'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEz3aihFFEA
So exactly what Tony Bliar and the WEF are pushing?
Can someone remind me where the line is drawn between conspiracy theory and reality...
EDIT: I'm also confused as to what exactly gives the people pushing this stuff the power to do so. No-one elected the WEF or the WHO, and our 'glorious leaders' we voted in are supposed to be doing what we want, not what they want, so why is this happening?
And why are the general public not doing a thing about the fact they are being pushed into a total-surveillance society where they are dependent on effectively asking permission to do anything, by having to show teacher how good they've been and how they've not got filthy diseases??
Are we living amongst morons??
At this point in time (which could be subsequently proven wrong!), I'm starting to feel a little like this...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEz3aihFFEA
So exactly what Tony Bliar and the WEF are pushing?
Can someone remind me where the line is drawn between conspiracy theory and reality...
EDIT: I'm also confused as to what exactly gives the people pushing this stuff the power to do so. No-one elected the WEF or the WHO, and our 'glorious leaders' we voted in are supposed to be doing what we want, not what they want, so why is this happening?
And why are the general public not doing a thing about the fact they are being pushed into a total-surveillance society where they are dependent on effectively asking permission to do anything, by having to show teacher how good they've been and how they've not got filthy diseases??
Are we living amongst morons??
... herded into position before the gate closes. Frustrating, as many seem blind to the dangers. Those dangers may not come to fruition, but they are there. It seems to be a constant nibbling, a bit here, a bit there, all the time pushing us one way. As posted by the Libertarian Party...
... this seems to be gettiing uncomfortably close. I fear that if this is happening, we won't realise it until the gate has indeed closed, and suddenly the table are turned; our freedoms are now only properly available as an offering from the state for meek compliance.
wisbech said:
I've lived most of my life in countries where an ID card is mandatory - with thumb print as well (Japan, HK, Singapore, Indonesia)
In no case was it an issue, or an infringement on my human rights. Really don't understand the issue in UK - especially as it is one of the main drivers behind UK being such a magnet for illegal immigration (just about impossible to get a job or have anything remotely like a reasonable life in the above countries without showing you are a legal resident, whereas in UK, not having ID cards makes it possible to live reasonably without legal residence)
The problem with this is how those new powers are used/abused. This year has taught me that distrust of 'officialdom' is actually the reasoned stance, the sensible, questioning option. Also posted by The Libertarian Party...In no case was it an issue, or an infringement on my human rights. Really don't understand the issue in UK - especially as it is one of the main drivers behind UK being such a magnet for illegal immigration (just about impossible to get a job or have anything remotely like a reasonable life in the above countries without showing you are a legal resident, whereas in UK, not having ID cards makes it possible to live reasonably without legal residence)
Conservative Cllr Ray Burston - of Dudley MBC said:
Tomorrow is 'V Day' for me - when I trot up to the clinic to become one of those who will have had Boris's famous 'shot in the arm'.
Ordinarily, this would have been a sensible public health measure that I would be more than happy to partake of. You see, I don't have a problem with vaccines. I have annual flu jabs. My children were vaccinated against common childhood illnesses; and they, in turn, have vaccinated their children against them too.
However, since late last year - when I first began warning that it would transpire that 'no vaccine' against CoVid19 would soon enough mean 'no job' (and 'no much else besides') - I've watched with mounting dismay (nay, horror!) as the stage is being remorselessly set for this appalling dystopia to become a reality. This, despite assurances by ministers to the contrary. Meanwhile, those of us who've publicly voiced our fears have been scoffed at as demented anti-vax conspiracy theorists harping on about nothing.
The compulsory medicating of consenting adults is ALWAYS wrong. The Nuremberg Code, which this country signed after the war, protects the right of the individual to refuse to be administered with any medication - including vaccines. There are those who, for whatever reasons of conscience or concern, will decline to be vaccinated. These people will likely remain a small minority whose refusal to participate in the vaccination programme will have no significant effect upon the drive to protect the general population.
And yet if CoVid19 'passports' are to made an essential prerequisite for undertaking even basic activities in life (like entering a shop or boarding public transport) then the fundamental rights not just of these people, but of all of us will, in any meaningful sense, also have been breached. That a CONSERVATIVE government is willing to turn a blind eye to this egregious assault upon a basic human right is doubly shameful.
So, yes, I will have the vaccine tomorrow as contribution to the fight against this virus - even though doing so has needlessly cast me and others like me upon an appalling moral dilemma.
Of course, in our euphoria at the prospect of being 'unlocked', those who exercise power over us know that most people will always choose material comfort over defending a principle; to trade their birthright as freeborn Englishmen and women for a potage of everyday convenience. Therefore, come the summer, most of you will no doubt be quite happy to flash your CoVid19 'passports' in order to enjoy a pint down the local or board a plane to the Costa Brava.
And yet I will say this again: if we, as a people, are not willing to OPEN OUR EYES and behold where the events of this last year are inexorably leading us then sadly we deserve to lose our freedoms.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur - "The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived."Ordinarily, this would have been a sensible public health measure that I would be more than happy to partake of. You see, I don't have a problem with vaccines. I have annual flu jabs. My children were vaccinated against common childhood illnesses; and they, in turn, have vaccinated their children against them too.
However, since late last year - when I first began warning that it would transpire that 'no vaccine' against CoVid19 would soon enough mean 'no job' (and 'no much else besides') - I've watched with mounting dismay (nay, horror!) as the stage is being remorselessly set for this appalling dystopia to become a reality. This, despite assurances by ministers to the contrary. Meanwhile, those of us who've publicly voiced our fears have been scoffed at as demented anti-vax conspiracy theorists harping on about nothing.
The compulsory medicating of consenting adults is ALWAYS wrong. The Nuremberg Code, which this country signed after the war, protects the right of the individual to refuse to be administered with any medication - including vaccines. There are those who, for whatever reasons of conscience or concern, will decline to be vaccinated. These people will likely remain a small minority whose refusal to participate in the vaccination programme will have no significant effect upon the drive to protect the general population.
And yet if CoVid19 'passports' are to made an essential prerequisite for undertaking even basic activities in life (like entering a shop or boarding public transport) then the fundamental rights not just of these people, but of all of us will, in any meaningful sense, also have been breached. That a CONSERVATIVE government is willing to turn a blind eye to this egregious assault upon a basic human right is doubly shameful.
So, yes, I will have the vaccine tomorrow as contribution to the fight against this virus - even though doing so has needlessly cast me and others like me upon an appalling moral dilemma.
Of course, in our euphoria at the prospect of being 'unlocked', those who exercise power over us know that most people will always choose material comfort over defending a principle; to trade their birthright as freeborn Englishmen and women for a potage of everyday convenience. Therefore, come the summer, most of you will no doubt be quite happy to flash your CoVid19 'passports' in order to enjoy a pint down the local or board a plane to the Costa Brava.
And yet I will say this again: if we, as a people, are not willing to OPEN OUR EYES and behold where the events of this last year are inexorably leading us then sadly we deserve to lose our freedoms.
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur.
Debate - E-petition relating to vaccine passports - 15 March 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtJqyDyuqhE
Some good and positive comments from some of the assembled MPs... but no real commitment from Penny Mordaunt (speaking for the government) to support those voices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtJqyDyuqhE
Some good and positive comments from some of the assembled MPs... but no real commitment from Penny Mordaunt (speaking for the government) to support those voices.
Covid-19: Pubs could require vaccine passports - Boris Johnson
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56517486
What 'passports' are these then, Johnson? The passports you said wouldn't be introduced as 'that's not how we do things in the UK'?
Duplicitous tw*t.
Anyway, if the vaccine is effective then why the concern about asymptomatic (not many would go to the pub with genuine flu-like symptoms) people going to the pub? An oxymoronic situation.
Edited to add: lots of negative comments on the BBC page. The endless creep of control continues.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56517486
What 'passports' are these then, Johnson? The passports you said wouldn't be introduced as 'that's not how we do things in the UK'?
Duplicitous tw*t.
Anyway, if the vaccine is effective then why the concern about asymptomatic (not many would go to the pub with genuine flu-like symptoms) people going to the pub? An oxymoronic situation.
Edited to add: lots of negative comments on the BBC page. The endless creep of control continues.
Edited by MikeT66 on Thursday 25th March 06:45
Electro1980 said:
MikeT66 said:
Covid-19: Pubs could require vaccine passports - Boris Johnson
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56517486
What 'passports' are these then, Johnson? The passports you said wouldn't be introduced as 'that's not how we do things in the UK'?
Duplicitous tw*t.
Anyway, if the vaccine is effective then why the concern about asymptomatic (not many would go to the pub with genuine flu-like symptoms) people going to the pub? An oxymoronic situation.
Edited to add: lots of negative comments on the BBC page. The endless creep of control continues.
Given that pubs are opening in the next few weeks and likely to open before many people have even had the chance to be vaccinated I can’t see how this is either legal or fair.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56517486
What 'passports' are these then, Johnson? The passports you said wouldn't be introduced as 'that's not how we do things in the UK'?
Duplicitous tw*t.
Anyway, if the vaccine is effective then why the concern about asymptomatic (not many would go to the pub with genuine flu-like symptoms) people going to the pub? An oxymoronic situation.
Edited to add: lots of negative comments on the BBC page. The endless creep of control continues.
Edited by MikeT66 on Thursday 25th March 06:45
This would not only discriminate against those who are younger, but also they are the ones who have suffered the most for the least benefit, to now be told by BoJo that they are can’t socialise. That is without taking in to account all of the groups that can’t be vaccinated.
purplepenguin said:
Murph7355 said:
purplepenguin said:
Apples and oranges
Sceptic - yes
Own business ruined - yes
Willing to go along with bulls
t - no
It’s not me who would ruin businesses requiring vaccinations proof, that would be the government and the owner of the business and their “offer”
On the other hand, I would actively support pubs and gigs who don’t require “papers please”
I suspect test and trace will still be a thing.Sceptic - yes
Own business ruined - yes
Willing to go along with bulls
t - no It’s not me who would ruin businesses requiring vaccinations proof, that would be the government and the owner of the business and their “offer”
On the other hand, I would actively support pubs and gigs who don’t require “papers please”
Edited by purplepenguin on Thursday 25th March 07:33
Pubs will likely have a choice. But if they are found to be involved in outbreaks they'll be shut down.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff