I'm good with the passport too, mainly because it pisses these people off as wellI'm fine with it tbh.
Spoke to my hippie anti vaxx next door neighbours yesterday who were moaning about how they were unable to visit their holiday house in France this summer just because they refused the evil vaccine and i have no problem with that at all.
It was aiming to point out the absurdity of the answer.
I'm discussing vaccine passports so most of your answer is missing the point.
I'm hoping the passport has to have a microchip in it. That'll send the loons into fucking orbit.
Could be something to do with at least 4.5m dead and climbing
Denmark lifts all Covid restrictions as vaccinations top 80%
Scandinavian country declares it no longer considers coronavirus a ‘socially critical’ diseasewww.theguardian.com
I have the jab and my passport. I needed it a couple of times to enter themeparks or sit in restaurants. Havent been to any clubs yet. Now I'm never asked. Masks have gone, except when you go to the doctors or to get tested.
Plus side is, with the jab, my internet is well fast.
Yes, but, first, they're less likely to have it, and, secondly, even if they do have it, they're less likely to pass it on.
You are aware that it's not either 'no transmission' or 'transmission'? That there are degrees of transmissablity? And that vaccination lowers it, as well as lowering your chance of having it to pass on in the first place?
So what's the point of a passport and god forbid 'displaying jab status' as suggested above?
To prevent the spread of the disease by excluding those most like to have, transmit, and catch it.
Read what I wrote then read what you just wrote. You think vaccinated people can't catch and transmit it? 'Most likely'? I know of several double-jabbed people who have been surprised that they've now tested positive.
I know that vaccinated people can catch it. But they are less likely to, and less likely to spread it others if they do, and less likely to suffer serious consequences. That's the reason behind passports.
It doesn't. The false negative rate for lfts is incredibly high. The tests aren't meant to give you confidence that you are disease-free. They are meant to catch a few cases that otherwise wouldn't be caught, or catch them slightly earlier. But they do not and cannot establish that someone is free of covid.
See, on one hand I'm quite sympathetic to them having a paper option, which gets around one of my major objections (more on that in a little bit). On the other hand though, wouldn't that make them quite easy to just...photocopy? Depends on what the QR code displays when scanned, but I can't see how they'd tell a non-vaxxed person who'd borrowed/photocopied their vaxxed mate's letter apart from
I suppose the "we" and "doesn't have to be forever" are part of the problem here - we can discuss what would be a good idea, but ultimately the tories are going to do what the tories are going to do.
That is a convincing counter-argument to the claim that vaccinated people can't catch and transmit it, an argument that no-one is making, but it's not much of a counter-argument to the claim that vaccinated people are less likely to catch and transmit it. You do get the difference between "impossible" and "less likely", right?
www.unison.org.uk
It really doesn't. The best thing you could do to protect those vulnerable people is to get vaccinated.
See, on one hand I'm quite sympathetic to them having a paper option, which gets around one of my major objections (more on that in a little bit). On the other hand though, wouldn't that make them quite easy to just...photocopy? Depends on what the QR code displays when scanned, but I can't see how they'd tell a non-vaxxed person who'd borrowed/photocopied their vaxxed mate's letter apart from
I suppose the "we" and "doesn't have to be forever" are part of the problem here - we can discuss what would be a good idea, but ultimately the tories are going to do what the tories are going to do.
That is a convincing counter-argument to the claim that vaccinated people can't catch and transmit it, an argument that no-one is making, but it's not much of a counter-argument to the claim that vaccinated people are less likely to catch and transmit it. You do get the difference between "impossible" and "less likely", right?
Anyway, my thoughts on this are that a bit of nuance is needed, and specifically around what they're used for - like on one level, I find it hard to be that bothered by the idea of vaccine passports for international travel, because you already need actual passports for that, so it's not like there's really that much in the way of extra state control and coercion going on there. At the other extreme, if it was announced that, say, you needed a vaccine passport to hold a job, I'd hope people would find that a bit dodgy. The care work thing is a tricky question, but I sort of tend toward thinking Unison has the right line, I think:
Ministers must end jab compulsion to prevent care home catastrophe | News, Press release | News | UNISON National
Action needed immediately to stop staffing crisis
My two big general objections that I've not seen discussed much are
1) the smartphone thing - which sounds like it's not the case in Ireland? Anyway, at the moment it is still just about possible, if someone so chooses, to get through life as a functioning member of society with an old Nokia 3310 that can play Snake but nothing else, or even with no mobile phone at all. If that changes, so it's legally required to have a working smartphone before you can access most places, I think that'd be a sad development. And maybe in the grand cost-benefit calculation it's a step worth taking to save lives, but still, it'd be a sad thing and I think that should be acknowledged.
2) borders and migration - we all know that border control has been built into the everyday functioning of the NHS for years now. Having looked, you don't need an NHS number or migration status check to get the vaccine itself, which is good, but I have no idea how accessing the NHS app would go if you don't have legal migration status. Would requiring access to the NHS app on a regular basis effectively mean conducting regular migration status checks all the time? Again, maybe that is a price worth paying, but that does seem to be a major downside to me, and I think it should be part of the conversation.
Don't think blustering about "DID YOU KNOW THAT VACCINATED PEOPLE CAN STILL GET INFECTED???!!!" helps the conversation at all, though.
I mean, I guess the Irish government has put more thought into this than I have, and obviously name and dob can narrow things down a bit, like an 18-year-old with a QR code saying they were born in 1950 is going to raise some eyebrows, but it still sort of seems to me like someone who borrowed a QR code from a mate of a similar age would probably be able to get away with it?
