Covid Passports

Discussion in 'Taylor's Tittle-Tattle - General Banter' started by El distraído, Apr 5, 2021.

?

Where do you stand re this potential covid passport scheme?

  1. I'm in favour

    14 vote(s)
    63.6%
  2. I'm against

    5 vote(s)
    22.7%
  3. Not sure

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  1. El distraído

    El distraído Johnny Foreigner

    I see that 70 MPs were lobbying against this idea the other day.

    Can anyone explain why? It doesn't really make sense to me. If covid vacination documentation of some sort means that people can begin to travel internationally again, isn't that a good thing?

    What's the main argument against it? That families with children won't be able to go abroad because the parents have been vaccinated but the kids haven't?
     
  2. Diamond

    Diamond Squad Player

    It has to get to the point where we get freedom to travel back again, but do we wait for everyone to be vaccinated before that point or have passports as you've described? If we go for the passport route then that leaves a large part of the population excluded from travel, which even though it's likely to happen is grossly unfair.

    I'm only for it to get the economy moving again. Personally I won't travel until we're all allowed.
     
  3. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    Ultimately the rules for international travel will be determined by the country you are traveling to.

    I think it's highly likely that countries will insist on some kind of vaccine "passport". Hopefully they will also allow for people to travel that haven't been offered, or are unable to take, a vaccine with some kind of covid test alternative.

    I have no problems with anyone who chooses not to have a vaccine having their options restricted but I think it would be very unfair to limit those who are too young to be offered one or medically unable to have one.
     
    WatfordTalk likes this.
  4. HappyHornet24

    HappyHornet24 Crapster Staff Member

    Does it, though? The proposals I’ve read about would take into account those who can’t be vaccinated - eg by requiring a recent negative covid test in lieu of proof of vaccination.
    I’m all for it if it gets us all back to some form of normality sooner rather than later. And it’s not just travel - it could be used to get things like the theatre back up and running quicker.
     
    Moose, zztop and stevetalboys like this.
  5. HappyHornet24

    HappyHornet24 Crapster Staff Member

    As I said above, I don’t think any proposed scheme would do this.
     
    zztop and stevetalboys like this.
  6. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    But the proposed UK scheme is only one side of the coin. The country you are visiting may insist on a vaccine before granting entry. Hopefully they will provide a negative test alternative but ultimately that will be an individual country's choice.
     
  7. Otter

    Otter Gambling industry insider

    I was thinking yesterday that the biometric ID card that the last Labour government spent millions on would have been a perfectly good solution to this very problem. Get vaccinated, get your card updated, swipe your card to enter venue.

    Not that I'm championing the ID card idea of old but in this scenario it would have provided an option going forward.
     
    The Voice of Reason likes this.
  8. Otter

    Otter Gambling industry insider

    Additionally, if the government do introduce something to prove you've had the vaccine, I suggest that along with it very stiff penalties for knowingly using a forged one, £10k say, and much stiffer penalties for selling fake Covid passports.
     
    The Voice of Reason likes this.
  9. El distraído

    El distraído Johnny Foreigner

    I really don't think it is unfair though.

    'Unfair' in my book is seeing your loved ones die from covid. Unfair is being unable to be with them by their bedside. Unfair in my opinion is not being told you have to wait an extra 3 months for a holiday because the vaccination has not yet been rolled out to your age group.

    For what it's worth, I'm in my early 30s and am aware that it may be another few months before I'm offered the vaccine.

    I accept that and I accept that as a consequence, people older than me who have had both jabs will get a covid passport and will be able to travel before I am. I have no problem with that. As you pointed out, if this idea helps the travel & hospitality industry to get moving again, I'm in favour.

    I think if we really used the word 'unfair' in its true meaning, we'd see that this is covid passport idea seems to be a fairly reasonable one.

    Besides, for all we know, other countries may allow non-vaccinated Brits to visit as long as they take a covid test when they land. If the younger age groups are that desperate for a holiday, this solution seems reasonable to me.
     
  10. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    It’s not just “discrimination”, I think. At least some of those MPs see any form of “certification” as an infringement of liberty. Which, of course rather overlooks the point that without it, everyone’s liberty would likely have to be infringed for longer.
     
    sydney_horn and Bwood_Horn like this.
  11. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    As I understand it the MPs you’re referring to are against domestic applications, not the international travel version which seems almost guaranteed to happen.
     
  12. lm_wfc

    lm_wfc Squad Player

    International travel isn't just people wanting a week in Ibiza though. Lots of people have families abroad.
     
  13. El distraído

    El distraído Johnny Foreigner

    That's hard luck.

    IMO, they'll just have to wait until they've had both jabs and are able to travel again.

    I still see no reason why the rest of the country should have to wait for everyone else to get the jab.
     
  14. a19tgg

    a19tgg Squad Player

    No problem with it. Obviously it goes without saying that I like going on holiday, but I’m the sort of person if I can’t do something I’ll just get on with it and do something else. I’m never really one for, well if everyone one can’t do it nobody can, makes no sense to me.
     
    FromDiv4 and The Voice of Reason like this.
  15. lm_wfc

    lm_wfc Squad Player


    They don't have to wait. People travelled last summer with negative tests.

    If the vulnerable are vaccinated, there is no reason that those who haven't had the vaccine shouldn't be allowed to visit other countries if they are willing to take the tests and isolate when coming back.

    If SAGA cruises are back on it's not fair that people who pose little risk of passing on any infections to anyone at risk should have to stay at home and not see their loved ones
     
    The Voice of Reason likes this.
  16. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    How do you know other countries will let them in?

    And of course there is a reason. Variants against which the vaccines are less effective may arise from overseas, and compliance with self-isolation may be poor.

    Whether that is a risk which warrants restricting liberty in a country with a high vaccination rate is the key question.
     
  17. lm_wfc

    lm_wfc Squad Player

    That's up to the other countries. It seems most are willing to accept negative tests as good enough for entry.
    Given the falling rates in the UK I don't know why anyone except maybe Australasia worry about people from the UK.
     
  18. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    I think that’s true as things stand, but I’m simply saying that “they don’t have to wait” is not a decision for this country to make.
     
  19. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    I’m happy for vaccine passports once vaccines have been offered to all.

    But given young people have next to no risk from Covid, banning them both from getting vaccines (until older people are vaccinated) whilst also banning them from doing activities the older people get to do is incredibly unfair.

    Considering the young have disproportionately: lost their jobs, disrupted their education, lost formative years, fallen even further away from being able to afford houses due to government policy and will have to pay for the whole thing, adding this additional burden for a disease they’re largely unaffected by would be a step too far.

    But given political precedent, I fully expect it to happen.
     
    lm_wfc likes this.
  20. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    I think this is correct and it is fair that there is mitigation, like testing, in place until the vaccine is available to all.

    Once it is, it’s hard to have a big problem with it given all that has happened.
     
  21. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Is anyone suggesting this? So far as I can see, the proposals are based on either having been vaccinated or having a negative test. It might possibly be different to enter certain countries but we have no control over this.

    I should have thought that a scheme like that in your post would stand no chance of getting through Parliament. Even leaving aside the unfairness, it’s not going to help the economy to exclude a huge category of people - somewhere around half the population- from access.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2021
  22. cyaninternetdog

    cyaninternetdog Forum Hippie

    Are they blue?
     
    HappyHornet24 and lm_wfc like this.
  23. lm_wfc

    lm_wfc Squad Player

    Also - if this is the concern is: a variant which resistant to vaccines that could spread around the mostly vaccinated UK and cause a major issue. How do you think it's more likely to get here:
    1. Via someone who is unvaccinated who has taken tests either side of flying and is isolating on return.
    2. Via one of the thousands of vaccinated travellers who have not taken any tests or isolated, on the basis they have a vaccine - -which the virus is resistant to anyway
    Even with current variants its more likely someone vaccinated with ~95% effectiveness will bring back the infection rather than someone who is taking multiple PCR tests
     
  24. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Yes, OK. The problem is that you can't guarantee that people will self-isolate. So I am not sure that category 1 is sufficiently watertight.

    So you either take the risk and let everyone go (as you originally suggested) or be ultta-cautious and allow no one, vaccinated or not. The government initially seemed to be leaning towards the latter but it seems to have softened.

    Ultimately it will still hang on what the "receiving country" permits.
     
  25. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason First Team Captain

    I don't see why they could not be in Credit Card Style with a chip, in fact if we all had ID cards they could be added to the data stored in them.
     
  26. Mavu

    Mavu Academy Graduate

    I don't see why they could not be in the chip they gave us with the 'vaccine'
     
    Moose likes this.
  27. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason First Team Captain

    Try thinking of this the other way around!

    Why should people who through no fault of their own other than their age have had the vaccine be held back from travelling etc? Just because....

    "IT'S NOT FAIR"
    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

     
  28. AndrewH63

    AndrewH63 Reservist

    What’s the difference (in terms of the personal liberty argument), on having an official document you must have that says you have tested negative, and an official document saying you have been vaccinated or are officially exempt from having a vaccination because of medical reasons?

    No doubt not being able to have the vaccine probably already restricts your options to do many things. I bet your travel insurance is hard to get also.

    As no doubt there will be further waves of infections and deaths until this virus mutates into a more benign endemic human disease. I think community and responsibility to thwart the spread of serious disease trumps personal decisions on public health matters.
     
  29. hornmeister

    hornmeister Administrator Staff Member

    We can't discriminate against people (in everyday life when to all intents and purposes everything is open) who haven't had the vaccine until everyone has been offered it. There's still a sizeable chunk of people, most under 50 that haven't had the opportunity yet and it would be unfair to prevent them from doing things through no fault of their own.

    After that, then we can think again about how ethical it is to discriminate and whether the risk numbers stack up if we don't.
    It's not ethical to force the vaccine onto someone who doesn't want it, however it's also not ethical to force someone who may be at risk because they're medically unable to take the vaccine, to be in close contact with another that has chosen to take the risk of not being vaccinated.
    For me going forward until the world levels are low, those that are unvaccinated, should be subject to testing in certain circumstances where there is an increased risk of transmission and contact.
     
    Cthulhu likes this.
  30. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Why is it not ethical to vaccinate someone who doesn't want to be vaccinated, but is ethical to test someone who doesn't want to be tested?
     
  31. FromDiv4

    FromDiv4 Reservist

    You don't need to force people to do anything, but you can say you can only do certain things if you have done something. Then people have the choice, if they want to do something they have to meet the requirements.

    For example, if you want to drive a car you have to pass the test. You don't have to take the test if you chose not to drive.

    People should not be forced, but regulations can be in place to the benefit of the majority of people.
     
    hornmeister likes this.
  32. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    But couldn't you say that in order to go to the pub you need to be vaccinated? If they want to go the pub, they need to have got the jab. You don't have to get the jab if you choose not to go to the pub.

    Wny is requiring a test not 'forcing' someone?
     
  33. Cthulhu

    Cthulhu Keyboard Warrior Staff Member

    It's a reasonable question. At face value one is a medical intervention, the other is a test, that whilst slightly unpleasant doesn't cause harm.
    Im not saying the vaccine causes harm to any non-negligible extent but they are slightly different things.
     
  34. Cthulhu

    Cthulhu Keyboard Warrior Staff Member

    Shot and a shot. Set up a little booth in the pub to vaccinate and give a little brandy chaser.
     
    Keighley likes this.
  35. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Yes, I think that is what a bioethicist would say. But the line between medical intervention and test seems a bit blurred to me. Both involve intrusions on bodily integrity, it's just that one is more serious and lasting than the other.

    But if we try to justify this on the basis of autonomy, I'm not sure I see a real difference. Either way you are 'forcing' someone to do something which they might not otherwise choose to do.

    Well, in all seriousness I think that the government was toying with the idea that requiring a 'passport' to go to the pub etc. would be a way of encouraging vaccine takeup without making it formally mandatory.
     

Share This Page