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)
  2. I'm against

    5 vote(s)
  3. Not sure

    3 vote(s)
  1. FromDiv4

    FromDiv4 Reservist

    Do you agree that people should be CRB checked before working/training children? or do you think they should not be forced to do something, so they can do what they want?
  2. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    Of course they should. It's perfectly acceptable to impose requirements before an activity can be underrtaken.

    But in what way do you see a difference between making people have a Covid test before they can go to the pub, and making people have a Covid vaccine before they can go to the pub? Why do you consider the latter to be 'forcing' someone, but not the former? What is the difference between the two scenarios that justifes the former being a condituion before an activity can be engaged in, but not the latter?
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021 at 12:35 PM
  3. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    So what happens to an under 30 who is offered the AZ jab because that’s all that’s available locally but who exercises their right to not have it and wait for an alternative? Do they count as having been offered the vaccine at that point or not?
  4. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    The other point is: why would anyone under 30 agree to have the AZ vaccine? Why not just opt/wait for the one which is (supposedly) safer?
  5. FromDiv4

    FromDiv4 Reservist

    I didn't specify what the requirement was, I just said exactly what you said "It's perfectly acceptable to impose requirements before an activity can be underrtaken."
  6. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    OK. I just assumed that because you were responding to my question (based on Meister's post):
    "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?"

    that you thought one was an ethically acceptable 'condition' because it doesn't involve 'forcing someone' and that the other was not, because it does. Apologies if I misunderstood.

    My own view is that both involve some degree of 'forcing' (intrusion on autonomy) so that argument doesn't get us all that far, but that the difference may lie in the lasting nature of the impact that vaccination has over testing.
  7. FromDiv4

    FromDiv4 Reservist

    It is a bad situations that we all want to get out of as quickly as possible. Not an easy answer to the way out and how cautious or not we are as a nation. I think people are also cautious about giving in to "temporary" measures that may be permanent or open the door to further restrictions/tracking of people.

    I am glad I don't have to make the decisions, large numbers of people will complain whatever is done.
  8. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player


    I was just posing the question as one for general debate really as Meister had said that we should go for testing as a condition but didn't think vaccination should be mandatory.
    hornmeister likes this.
  9. lm_wfc

    lm_wfc Squad Player

    Because the risk is tiny. 0.0004%.
    They said its similar to the risk of going to hospital from vivid in a low infection area over 16 weeks.

    But that rush repeats every 16 weeks and will grow if/when infections raise

    And the main negative to under 30s is not the risk of serious harm from covid, there is the risk of long covid, catching it and isolating for 2 weeks while ill, missing work and feeling like ****.
  10. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    No, I mean why choose AZ instead of Pfizer or Moderna (or others) when offered a choice, as will be the case?
  11. Mavu

    Mavu Academy Graduate

    It's not even that risky, 0.0004% chance of a blood clot (79 cases), less than 0.0001% chance of fatal clot (19 deaths).

    Less than 1 in a million.

    I really don't understand why this is even news...
    The undeniable truth and lm_wfc like this.
  12. WillisWasTheWorst

    WillisWasTheWorst Its making less grammar mistake's thats important

    Because people don’t understand either probability or risk.
    stevetalboys, Mavu and FromDiv4 like this.
  13. lm_wfc

    lm_wfc Squad Player

    I would take whatever I can, I'm fine with AZ
  14. Keighley

    Keighley Squad Player

    But if there are two vaccines available on the day of the jab, wouldn't the vast majority of people choose the one that hasn't been reported as having the clotting risk? I don't see what incentive there is to choose the 'riskier' one, even if that risk is very, very, very small.

    (I suspect the answer must be that there won't be a choice on the day, ie that one will be available before the other, which offers the incentive. But that wasn't clear to me from a cursory reading of yesterday's news).
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021 at 6:09 PM
  15. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason First Team Captain

    Personally I would have the one that has been tested proven very widely and that is AZ.

    Lets face it the other two have not been used enough to know one way or the other if they might actually cause more deadly side effects? At least with AZ we now know the risks, and they are very low indeed.
  16. AndrewH63

    AndrewH63 Reservist

    CVST risk is a lot higher for those taking oral contraceptives and indeed pregnancy is also a higher cvst risk. All compounded raised risk for smokers and the obese.

    The key point on AZ will be the comparative risk between different types of Covid vaccines.

    I know that the most dangerous part of my annual holiday travel, is the mini cab ride up to London junction 10 airport. I still fret about the flight, because I travel in a car everyday, and even though I know aeroplane accidents are both rare and catastrophic for those on board.

Share This Page