FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Italy introduces mandatory vaccine passport.
Italy introduces mandatory vaccine passport.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A so called "Green pass" is now introduced in italy for indoor activitied which is required to enter archeological sites, gyms, theaters, indoor pools and the indoor sections of restaurants, bars and cafes. How well do you think that this will go down in italy? Like in france, in italy mass demonstration have started, it is not good for the economy nor the hospitality sector." There were European Plans for 'Vaccines Passports 20 months prior to Covid 19. The European Commission published a proposal for vaccine passports on 26 April 2018. The document was called Strengthened Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseases. Easily found online. A roadmap document was issued 23rd May 2019 which set out specific plans for implementing the European Commission’s proposal. Actions listed in the roadmap included the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card/passport  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A so called "Green pass" is now introduced in italy for indoor activitied which is required to enter archeological sites, gyms, theaters, indoor pools and the indoor sections of restaurants, bars and cafes. How well do you think that this will go down in italy? Like in france, in italy mass demonstration have started, it is not good for the economy nor the hospitality sector." The economy will be fine if people who want to go to these places get the pass. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not well at all. I know I'll be protesting about it if it comes in here " Yes, it wouldnt surprise me if it was introduced to other countries as well. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not well at all. I know I'll be protesting about it if it comes in here " I'm sure that will soon put a stop to it   | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A so called "Green pass" is now introduced in italy for indoor activitied which is required to enter archeological sites, gyms, theaters, indoor pools and the indoor sections of restaurants, bars and cafes. How well do you think that this will go down in italy? Like in france, in italy mass demonstration have started, it is not good for the economy nor the hospitality sector. The economy will be fine if people who want to go to these places get the pass."
It'll probably encourage those who've had to shield to return to some sort of normal life. Could even be a benefit. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. " Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" I'm all for it and wish Boris would hurry it along to be the case in the UK also "We agree, can't see the problem at all. Should also include childhood vaccinations as well so be issued early in life. If it was combined with an ID card it would solve the problems of people trying to scam the system and should make it much more difficult for people who shouldn't be here. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19." Revisionist, straw man, false equivalence. The vaccine is not mandatory. If private businesses decide to make their services being contingent on their customers being vaccinated then that's their right. If insurance conpanies make venies implement this to cover employee or outbreak insurance then again that is their choice. If the gov make vaccines mandatory for use of public transport then you can choose not to use public transport. Society does not have to be designed for your convenience - the utilitarian ethic is a valid response to this kind of crisis. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A so called "Green pass" is now introduced in italy for indoor activitied which is required to enter archeological sites, gyms, theaters, indoor pools and the indoor sections of restaurants, bars and cafes. How well do you think that this will go down in italy? Like in france, in italy mass demonstration have started, it is not good for the economy nor the hospitality sector." It's not the principle of it that is of concern to me. I mean what's not to like about helping everyone stay healthy.? But the operation and management and data security of it and the way it is introduced will be of huge significance. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19." The slippery slop to what exactly? You are already monitored to death. You would be very shocked if you knew how much. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" I'm all for it and wish Boris would hurry it along to be the case in the UK also "He's waiting to see what twitter says first. I imagine it will be... "if you want one you can have one... This govt does t want to tell people what they have to do" | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" I'm all for it and wish Boris would hurry it along to be the case in the UK also
We agree, can't see the problem at all. Should also include childhood vaccinations as well so be issued early in life.
If it was combined with an ID card it would solve the problems of people trying to scam the system and should make it much more difficult for people who shouldn't be here."You mean like the red book you get for kids? But in an app so you can always put your hands on it? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" I'm all for it and wish Boris would hurry it along to be the case in the UK also
We agree, can't see the problem at all. Should also include childhood vaccinations as well so be issued early in life.
If it was combined with an ID card it would solve the problems of people trying to scam the system and should make it much more difficult for people who shouldn't be here."I hope that if such a thing does happen, it reduces the price of the ID card for us foreign nationals who carry one. I would of course not require it for anything truly necessary or involving core rights, like grocery shopping, primary/secondary education, or voting. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not well at all. I know I'll be protesting about it if it comes in here " Thats ok. Protests are normally held outside. Crack on. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19. The slippery slop to what exactly? You are already monitored to death. You would be very shocked if you knew how much." The slippery slope to losing medical autonomy. You've already started the mission creep in your own reply. Originally it was for crowded nightclubs, now it's for public transport? Next, education, NHS, supermarkets will all get off limits unless you take a host of drugs determined by the government. It won't just be the COVID19 vaccine, it will be the flu vaccine and then whatever threat they decide on next. You can then delude yourself that its voluntary but if you're exluded from the majority of society then that makes it compulsory. In the same way taxes are "voluntary" so long as you dont want to own anything, work or buy anything. In the same way councils abused anti terrorism laws to fine people who put their bins out on the wrong day, it absolutely will be abused for something you can't even imagine right now. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19. The slippery slop to what exactly? You are already monitored to death. You would be very shocked if you knew how much. The slippery slope to losing medical autonomy. You've already started the mission creep in your own reply. Originally it was for crowded nightclubs, now it's for public transport? Next, education, NHS, supermarkets will all get off limits unless you take a host of drugs determined by the government. It won't just be the COVID19 vaccine, it will be the flu vaccine and then whatever threat they decide on next. You can then delude yourself that its voluntary but if you're exluded from the majority of society then that makes it compulsory. In the same way taxes are "voluntary" so long as you dont want to own anything, work or buy anything. In the same way councils abused anti terrorism laws to fine people who put their bins out on the wrong day, it absolutely will be abused for something you can't even imagine right now. " "I dont like the choice = no choice" No - in this situation you are a liability to society through paranoia and ignorance. This is the social contract - either be a responsible member of this society or be excluded from it. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" I'm all for it and wish Boris would hurry it along to be the case in the UK also
He's waiting to see what twitter says first. I imagine it will be... "if you want one you can have one... This govt does t want to tell people what they have to do" "I actually prefer a government who doesn’t want to tell people what to do. I’m all for advice, but agreeing to the government dictating how the population can live their lives is fraught with problems. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"France have also introduced a passport with even more restrictions. One is you can not go to a hospital without a covid passport. It is nonsense." Guess they need to do something with 20000 new cases every day....its either that or full, long term lockdowns. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19. The slippery slop to what exactly? You are already monitored to death. You would be very shocked if you knew how much. The slippery slope to losing medical autonomy. You've already started the mission creep in your own reply. Originally it was for crowded nightclubs, now it's for public transport? Next, education, NHS, supermarkets will all get off limits unless you take a host of drugs determined by the government. It won't just be the COVID19 vaccine, it will be the flu vaccine and then whatever threat they decide on next. You can then delude yourself that its voluntary but if you're exluded from the majority of society then that makes it compulsory. In the same way taxes are "voluntary" so long as you dont want to own anything, work or buy anything. In the same way councils abused anti terrorism laws to fine people who put their bins out on the wrong day, it absolutely will be abused for something you can't even imagine right now. "I dont like the choice = no choice" No - in this situation you are a liability to society through paranoia and ignorance. This is the social contract - either be a responsible member of this society or be excluded from it." Nonsense. Everyone is a liability to society in someway or another. Are you going to exclude people who dont have the flu vaccine next ? | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The only issue are those that want the impossible - to take no responsibility for taking steps to protect others and themselves, as well as their economic well-being etc - whilst demanding that everyone else pretends that there's no problem and only some people have to make sacrifices. We cannot have it all ways. There is a cost for us to return to an improved, safer lifestyle - vaccines and restrictions. Take your pick. Italy and indeed the UK, could struggle slowly, losing more people, restricting everyone whilst keeping more dangerous engagement and activities closed or restricted, vainly making the majority struggle, because the minority refuse to take the very simple step that they resist. Some will complain in Italy, just as a loud minority complains about something here, particularly any type that demands something for free. If fines for establishments are severe, they will make sure that adherence is high. " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19. The slippery slop to what exactly? You are already monitored to death. You would be very shocked if you knew how much. The slippery slope to losing medical autonomy. You've already started the mission creep in your own reply. Originally it was for crowded nightclubs, now it's for public transport? Next, education, NHS, supermarkets will all get off limits unless you take a host of drugs determined by the government. It won't just be the COVID19 vaccine, it will be the flu vaccine and then whatever threat they decide on next. You can then delude yourself that its voluntary but if you're exluded from the majority of society then that makes it compulsory. In the same way taxes are "voluntary" so long as you dont want to own anything, work or buy anything. In the same way councils abused anti terrorism laws to fine people who put their bins out on the wrong day, it absolutely will be abused for something you can't even imagine right now. "I dont like the choice = no choice" No - in this situation you are a liability to society through paranoia and ignorance. This is the social contract - either be a responsible member of this society or be excluded from it. Nonsense. Everyone is a liability to society in someway or another. Are you going to exclude people who dont have the flu vaccine next ?" I mean...the flu isn't Covid. So no. "Everyone is a liability". No - your liability level or risk profile reduces massively once you are vaccinated. Vaccinations are the ONLY reason we have been able to reopen as fully as we have. Fortunately, 90% of the population aren't selfish and ignorant and have had at least one dose. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just another way to exclude people who cannot have the vaccine for whatever reason, what I think is ridiculous is that they are using the two jabs as a safe passport, what about all those people that the vaccine doesn't work for or last long, they should be mirroring the passports with a antibodies test or its another false sense of security " I have no issue protecting those who cannot take the vaccination, and exempting them. *Genuine* medical exemption is a tiny fraction of the population, and I get vaccinated to protect them as much as myself. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"People went from I'd punch a nazi To... People should absolutely show their papers Really quickly " Straw man / Reductio ad absurdem. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19. The slippery slop to what exactly? You are already monitored to death. You would be very shocked if you knew how much. The slippery slope to losing medical autonomy. You've already started the mission creep in your own reply. Originally it was for crowded nightclubs, now it's for public transport? Next, education, NHS, supermarkets will all get off limits unless you take a host of drugs determined by the government. It won't just be the COVID19 vaccine, it will be the flu vaccine and then whatever threat they decide on next. You can then delude yourself that its voluntary but if you're exluded from the majority of society then that makes it compulsory. In the same way taxes are "voluntary" so long as you dont want to own anything, work or buy anything. In the same way councils abused anti terrorism laws to fine people who put their bins out on the wrong day, it absolutely will be abused for something you can't even imagine right now. "I dont like the choice = no choice" No - in this situation you are a liability to society through paranoia and ignorance. This is the social contract - either be a responsible member of this society or be excluded from it. Nonsense. Everyone is a liability to society in someway or another. Are you going to exclude people who dont have the flu vaccine next ? I mean...the flu isn't Covid. So no. "Everyone is a liability". No - your liability level or risk profile reduces massively once you are vaccinated. Vaccinations are the ONLY reason we have been able to reopen as fully as we have. Fortunately, 90% of the population aren't selfish and ignorant and have had at least one dose. " All the data points to flu killing more people than covid this winter so yeah, you're right the flu isnt covid, its soon to be worse. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"People went from I'd punch a nazi To... People should absolutely show their papers Really quickly " Yup. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"We all have liberty some have the interlect to understand that they have it and the courage to fight for it. And some do not want you to be free in a free society. "I mean....I'm not entirely convinced that is anything other than word soup. Also - intellect* | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Not mandatory though is it? Only if you want to access certain public services and private businesses. That's the choice. Once passports are introduced it's a slippery slope, like the original restrictions "2 weeks to flatten the curve" to shifting the goal postage every five minutes. Once passports are introduced they will end up being for everything except covid-19. The slippery slop to what exactly? You are already monitored to death. You would be very shocked if you knew how much. The slippery slope to losing medical autonomy. You've already started the mission creep in your own reply. Originally it was for crowded nightclubs, now it's for public transport? Next, education, NHS, supermarkets will all get off limits unless you take a host of drugs determined by the government. It won't just be the COVID19 vaccine, it will be the flu vaccine and then whatever threat they decide on next. You can then delude yourself that its voluntary but if you're exluded from the majority of society then that makes it compulsory. In the same way taxes are "voluntary" so long as you dont want to own anything, work or buy anything. In the same way councils abused anti terrorism laws to fine people who put their bins out on the wrong day, it absolutely will be abused for something you can't even imagine right now. " I think you really do need to sit down in a dark room for a while. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's a tricky one. Is it fair to say that the vaccine has been beneficial in both reducing the spread (for a given level of freedom) as well as reducing hospitalisations and pressurw on the NHS. Is it fair to say that there is a critical mass of people who need to be vaccinated to allow us to have full freedom? If there are risks etc from the vaccine, is it fair that some get to ride on others taking risks. However many will argue the risk of covid is small for them, so the risk of the vaccine may be more than from Covid. And that there may be an unknown long term risk that has yet to be identified to add to this. Should they be forced to take on risk for the good of society? We largely accept that we shouldnt put others at risk through our chocies. See speed limits and smoking bans. The twist here is both of these increase risk to the individual too. But if smoking only harmwd others I think we'd still have the ban... In conclusion. I'm undecided. I see why governments want to do it. I see why many people are supportive. I feel there is a small bit of conflict buried in there that makes me uncomfortable to decide without more thought. " Sort of sounds reasonable but the risks from the vaccine are less than the risk of getting into a car - and yet we get into cars multiple times a day and we get 2 shots of vaccine. Long term effects of the vaccine are indeed technically unknown - except that scientists know what the tech does and there seems to be pretty much certitude that there are no long term negatives Monitoring so we can tweak advice is important - looking at yellow cards amd the stats to ensure risk is properly assessed alongside advice - but at this stage the data is overwhelmingly positive. The possible lucky thing for anti-vaxxers is that the rest of us will have effectively reduced transmission for their benefit to such a point there is little value in them being vaccinated in a few months time. However - the worry is what happens in the winter again | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's a tricky one. Is it fair to say that the vaccine has been beneficial in both reducing the spread (for a given level of freedom) as well as reducing hospitalisations and pressurw on the NHS. Is it fair to say that there is a critical mass of people who need to be vaccinated to allow us to have full freedom? If there are risks etc from the vaccine, is it fair that some get to ride on others taking risks. However many will argue the risk of covid is small for them, so the risk of the vaccine may be more than from Covid. And that there may be an unknown long term risk that has yet to be identified to add to this. Should they be forced to take on risk for the good of society? We largely accept that we shouldnt put others at risk through our chocies. See speed limits and smoking bans. The twist here is both of these increase risk to the individual too. But if smoking only harmwd others I think we'd still have the ban... In conclusion. I'm undecided. I see why governments want to do it. I see why many people are supportive. I feel there is a small bit of conflict buried in there that makes me uncomfortable to decide without more thought. Sort of sounds reasonable but the risks from the vaccine are less than the risk of getting into a car - and yet we get into cars multiple times a day and we get 2 shots of vaccine. Long term effects of the vaccine are indeed technically unknown - except that scientists know what the tech does and there seems to be pretty much certitude that there are no long term negatives Monitoring so we can tweak advice is important - looking at yellow cards amd the stats to ensure risk is properly assessed alongside advice - but at this stage the data is overwhelmingly positive. The possible lucky thing for anti-vaxxers is that the rest of us will have effectively reduced transmission for their benefit to such a point there is little value in them being vaccinated in a few months time. However - the worry is what happens in the winter again" I thought AZ was built on fairly new tech ? And while I totally accept we take bigger risks everyday, the utility of a car drive is a lot higher than (some see) the utility of the vaccine. So a different risk reward pay off. Now I'm coming over as anti vaxxer. I'm not. Double jabbed and would bday almost all should be. But I'm seeking reasons for why it shouldn't be hard mandatory or soft mandatory. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A so called "Green pass" is now introduced in italy for indoor activitied which is required to enter archeological sites, gyms, theaters, indoor pools and the indoor sections of restaurants, bars and cafes. How well do you think that this will go down in italy? Like in france, in italy mass demonstration have started, it is not good for the economy nor the hospitality sector." ultimate control no more freedom | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's a tricky one. Is it fair to say that the vaccine has been beneficial in both reducing the spread (for a given level of freedom) as well as reducing hospitalisations and pressurw on the NHS. Is it fair to say that there is a critical mass of people who need to be vaccinated to allow us to have full freedom? If there are risks etc from the vaccine, is it fair that some get to ride on others taking risks. However many will argue the risk of covid is small for them, so the risk of the vaccine may be more than from Covid. And that there may be an unknown long term risk that has yet to be identified to add to this. Should they be forced to take on risk for the good of society? We largely accept that we shouldnt put others at risk through our chocies. See speed limits and smoking bans. The twist here is both of these increase risk to the individual too. But if smoking only harmwd others I think we'd still have the ban... In conclusion. I'm undecided. I see why governments want to do it. I see why many people are supportive. I feel there is a small bit of conflict buried in there that makes me uncomfortable to decide without more thought. Sort of sounds reasonable but the risks from the vaccine are less than the risk of getting into a car - and yet we get into cars multiple times a day and we get 2 shots of vaccine. Long term effects of the vaccine are indeed technically unknown - except that scientists know what the tech does and there seems to be pretty much certitude that there are no long term negatives Monitoring so we can tweak advice is important - looking at yellow cards amd the stats to ensure risk is properly assessed alongside advice - but at this stage the data is overwhelmingly positive. The possible lucky thing for anti-vaxxers is that the rest of us will have effectively reduced transmission for their benefit to such a point there is little value in them being vaccinated in a few months time. However - the worry is what happens in the winter again" And how does the risk of catching covid and ending up in hospital compare with getting into a car.? I think it is helpful to have meaningful comparisons for the benefits of so many vaccinations in so many year groups. And that is true of all medications and not just the covid jab. There's no such thing as a free lunch and everything we put in our body has a price. We need to respect the individuals choice of what medications are put in their bodies. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The fact if somebody who has tested positive and who has already recovered from the virus doesn't get a green 'pass' tells you it's not really about the vaccine. They are implementing a Chinese style social credit system and using crisis to push it." Exactly if it was anything to do with health they'd accept a negative test | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's a tricky one. Is it fair to say that the vaccine has been beneficial in both reducing the spread (for a given level of freedom) as well as reducing hospitalisations and pressurw on the NHS. Is it fair to say that there is a critical mass of people who need to be vaccinated to allow us to have full freedom? If there are risks etc from the vaccine, is it fair that some get to ride on others taking risks. However many will argue the risk of covid is small for them, so the risk of the vaccine may be more than from Covid. And that there may be an unknown long term risk that has yet to be identified to add to this. Should they be forced to take on risk for the good of society? We largely accept that we shouldnt put others at risk through our chocies. See speed limits and smoking bans. The twist here is both of these increase risk to the individual too. But if smoking only harmwd others I think we'd still have the ban... In conclusion. I'm undecided. I see why governments want to do it. I see why many people are supportive. I feel there is a small bit of conflict buried in there that makes me uncomfortable to decide without more thought. Sort of sounds reasonable but the risks from the vaccine are less than the risk of getting into a car - and yet we get into cars multiple times a day and we get 2 shots of vaccine. Long term effects of the vaccine are indeed technically unknown - except that scientists know what the tech does and there seems to be pretty much certitude that there are no long term negatives Monitoring so we can tweak advice is important - looking at yellow cards amd the stats to ensure risk is properly assessed alongside advice - but at this stage the data is overwhelmingly positive. The possible lucky thing for anti-vaxxers is that the rest of us will have effectively reduced transmission for their benefit to such a point there is little value in them being vaccinated in a few months time. However - the worry is what happens in the winter again And how does the risk of catching covid and ending up in hospital compare with getting into a car.? I think it is helpful to have meaningful comparisons for the benefits of so many vaccinations in so many year groups. And that is true of all medications and not just the covid jab. There's no such thing as a free lunch and everything we put in our body has a price. We need to respect the individuals choice of what medications are put in their bodies. " We dont need to respect ignorance and stupidity. Ridicule has social utility here - perhaps sheer embarrassment and shame will work | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The fact if somebody who has tested positive and who has already recovered from the virus doesn't get a green 'pass' tells you it's not really about the vaccine. They are implementing a Chinese style social credit system and using crisis to push it." "They" being who? BoJo is the most Libertarian PM for decades and has been overly reluctant to shut down at every step. Having had the virus and having T cell evidence of acquired immunity would be reasonable if it wasn't for the emerging evidence that vaccine protection is measurably better and also thought to be better against predicted future mutations. Having the vaccine is easy and sensible. Get jabbed | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"I do not think this is a good thing. It creates a two tier society. I think there will be significant protests." 90% of people have had it. The 10% who havent are unlikely to manage a protest of any significance. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A so called "Green pass" is now introduced in italy for indoor activitied which is required to enter archeological sites, gyms, theaters, indoor pools and the indoor sections of restaurants, bars and cafes. How well do you think that this will go down in italy? Like in france, in italy mass demonstration have started, it is not good for the economy nor the hospitality sector. The economy will be fine ?????? The economy will be fine if people who want to go to these places get the pass." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
" I'm all for it and wish Boris would hurry it along to be the case in the UK also
He's waiting to see what twitter says first. I imagine it will be... "if you want one you can have one... This govt does t want to tell people what they have to do"
I actually prefer a government who doesn’t want to tell people what to do.
I’m all for advice, but agreeing to the government dictating how the population can live their lives is fraught with problems."The government should rely on us, not the other way round | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A so called "Green pass" is now introduced in italy for indoor activitied which is required to enter archeological sites, gyms, theaters, indoor pools and the indoor sections of restaurants, bars and cafes. How well do you think that this will go down in italy? Like in france, in italy mass demonstration have started, it is not good for the economy nor the hospitality sector. The economy will be fine if people who want to go to these places get the pass." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just another way to exclude people who cannot have the vaccine for whatever reason, what I think is ridiculous is that they are using the two jabs as a safe passport, what about all those people that the vaccine doesn't work for or last long, they should be mirroring the passports with a antibodies test or its another false sense of security " All of the countries, such as France, have inclusivity for those people unable to be vaccinated
In fact, those very same people are the ones who really need you to get vaccinated, to make our country especially safer for them.
Don't worry about the others. Do your bit, get vaccinated and let the stress go. A temporary pass scheme is a simple option to let the places that have greater risks, to be more fully open, allowing us all to enjoy a better life | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"The fact if somebody who has tested positive and who has already recovered from the virus doesn't get a green 'pass' tells you it's not really about the vaccine. They are implementing a Chinese style social credit system and using crisis to push it. Exactly if it was anything to do with health they'd accept a negative test " Yes
If it was a question of health, a negative test (even 48hrs prior) at any venue would surely trump vaccination status (bearing in mind that vaccinated can still suffer from, carry and transmit). It is completely about vaccination and I can only imagine why. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just another way to exclude people who cannot have the vaccine for whatever reason, what I think is ridiculous is that they are using the two jabs as a safe passport, what about all those people that the vaccine doesn't work for or last long, they should be mirroring the passports with a antibodies test or its another false sense of security All of the countries, such as France, have inclusivity for those people unable to be vaccinated
In fact, those very same people are the ones who really need you to get vaccinated, to make our country especially safer for them.
Don't worry about the others. Do your bit, get vaccinated and let the stress go. A temporary pass scheme is a simple option to let the places that have greater risks, to be more fully open, allowing us all to enjoy a better life "In other words people need to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus they got vaccinated against, all because someone didn’t get vaccinated. As for a temporary pass, righto… | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just another way to exclude people who cannot have the vaccine for whatever reason, what I think is ridiculous is that they are using the two jabs as a safe passport, what about all those people that the vaccine doesn't work for or last long, they should be mirroring the passports with a antibodies test or its another false sense of security All of the countries, such as France, have inclusivity for those people unable to be vaccinated
In fact, those very same people are the ones who really need you to get vaccinated, to make our country especially safer for them.
Don't worry about the others. Do your bit, get vaccinated and let the stress go. A temporary pass scheme is a simple option to let the places that have greater risks, to be more fully open, allowing us all to enjoy a better life
In other words people need to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus they got vaccinated against, all because someone didn’t get vaccinated.
As for a temporary pass, righto… "I agree | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Just another way to exclude people who cannot have the vaccine for whatever reason, what I think is ridiculous is that they are using the two jabs as a safe passport, what about all those people that the vaccine doesn't work for or last long, they should be mirroring the passports with a antibodies test or its another false sense of security All of the countries, such as France, have inclusivity for those people unable to be vaccinated
In fact, those very same people are the ones who really need you to get vaccinated, to make our country especially safer for them.
Don't worry about the others. Do your bit, get vaccinated and let the stress go. A temporary pass scheme is a simple option to let the places that have greater risks, to be more fully open, allowing us all to enjoy a better life
In other words people need to get vaccinated or a vaccinated person might get sick from the virus they got vaccinated against, all because someone didn’t get vaccinated.
As for a temporary pass, righto… " | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"People who don’t see an issue with this. You have your heads in the sand. It’s a slippery slope. " It really isn't | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"People who don’t see an issue with this. You have your heads in the sand. It’s a slippery slope. It really isn't " Governments have proved time and time again that it is. Once given an inch they will inevitably try for the mile. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"A so called "Green pass" is now introduced in italy for indoor activitied which is required to enter archeological sites, gyms, theaters, indoor pools and the indoor sections of restaurants, bars and cafes. How well do you think that this will go down in italy? Like in france, in italy mass demonstration have started, it is not good for the economy nor the hospitality sector. The economy will be fine if people who want to go to these places get the pass." Exactly | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"People who don’t see an issue with this. You have your heads in the sand. It’s a slippery slope. It really isn't Governments have proved time and time again that it is. Once given an inch they will inevitably try for the mile." Utter paranoid nonsense. The safeguards we have against that and the libertarian nature of BoJo are 0 threat in the way you suggest. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"People who don’t see an issue with this. You have your heads in the sand. It’s a slippery slope. It really isn't Governments have proved time and time again that it is. Once given an inch they will inevitably try for the mile." So we've seen a gradual ascent into further and further fascism from the 1930s... Oh. Oh wait. That's not right... | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"It's a tricky one. Is it fair to say that the vaccine has been beneficial in both reducing the spread (for a given level of freedom) as well as reducing hospitalisations and pressurw on the NHS. Is it fair to say that there is a critical mass of people who need to be vaccinated to allow us to have full freedom? If there are risks etc from the vaccine, is it fair that some get to ride on others taking risks. However many will argue the risk of covid is small for them, so the risk of the vaccine may be more than from Covid. And that there may be an unknown long term risk that has yet to be identified to add to this. Should they be forced to take on risk for the good of society? We largely accept that we shouldnt put others at risk through our chocies. See speed limits and smoking bans. The twist here is both of these increase risk to the individual too. But if smoking only harmwd others I think we'd still have the ban... In conclusion. I'm undecided. I see why governments want to do it. I see why many people are supportive. I feel there is a small bit of conflict buried in there that makes me uncomfortable to decide without more thought. " Absolutely could not agree more with all you have said and one of the best pieces on here! I think everyone should open there eyes and do plenty of research to read between the lines to see what is really going on before making such a big decision and this is definitely food for thought! | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds." | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds. "The issue is not vaccinations its that health and especially disease is a public issue. Me getting a vaccine limits my risk, but others not getting a vacinne adds risk. Remember a vaccine is not a shield, if a vaccine was a shield then no one would care what others do as my shield would protect me regardless. You can extend this to other public goods. For example; I would report a crime to the police. That limits the reach of crime. Others would not report a crime to the police therefore increasing both my risk and their own risk. If I had a crime shield I would not care if others reported crime, but as it is we only have a crime vaccine (so to speak). You can apply it to other situations were personal morals and ethics overlap with societies morals and ethics. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds.
The issue is not vaccinations its that health and especially disease is a public issue.
Me getting a vaccine limits my risk, but others not getting a vacinne adds risk.
Remember a vaccine is not a shield, if a vaccine was a shield then no one would care what others do as my shield would protect me regardless.
You can extend this to other public goods.
For example;
I would report a crime to the police. That limits the reach of crime.
Others would not report a crime to the police therefore increasing both my risk and their own risk.
If I had a crime shield I would not care if others reported crime, but as it is we only have a crime vaccine (so to speak).
You can apply it to other situations were personal morals and ethics overlap with societies morals and ethics.
"Worst explanation ever
You don't have and never will have a vaccine shield.
You could sit in a room full of vaccinated people and 10 people have a virus.
You could sit in a room full of unvaccinated people and no one has a virus.
What I am saying is vaccine status doesn't mean virus free.
You are just strutting around with false confidence (and a useless shield  ) | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds.
The issue is not vaccinations its that health and especially disease is a public issue.
Me getting a vaccine limits my risk, but others not getting a vacinne adds risk.
Remember a vaccine is not a shield, if a vaccine was a shield then no one would care what others do as my shield would protect me regardless.
You can extend this to other public goods.
For example;
I would report a crime to the police. That limits the reach of crime.
Others would not report a crime to the police therefore increasing both my risk and their own risk.
If I had a crime shield I would not care if others reported crime, but as it is we only have a crime vaccine (so to speak).
You can apply it to other situations were personal morals and ethics overlap with societies morals and ethics.
Worst explanation ever
You don't have and never will have a vaccine shield.
You could sit in a room full of vaccinated people and 10 people have a virus.
You could sit in a room full of unvaccinated people and no one has a virus.
What I am saying is vaccine status doesn't mean virus free.
You are just strutting around with false confidence (and a useless shield )"Yes but any fool is capable of understanding that the probability of infection from the vaccinated room will be far lower than from the unvaccinated room. Its not that difficult to understand. Having said that - maybe it is for some people. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds.
The issue is not vaccinations its that health and especially disease is a public issue.
Me getting a vaccine limits my risk, but others not getting a vacinne adds risk.
Remember a vaccine is not a shield, if a vaccine was a shield then no one would care what others do as my shield would protect me regardless.
You can extend this to other public goods.
For example;
I would report a crime to the police. That limits the reach of crime.
Others would not report a crime to the police therefore increasing both my risk and their own risk.
If I had a crime shield I would not care if others reported crime, but as it is we only have a crime vaccine (so to speak).
You can apply it to other situations were personal morals and ethics overlap with societies morals and ethics.
Worst explanation ever
You don't have and never will have a vaccine shield.
You could sit in a room full of vaccinated people and 10 people have a virus.
You could sit in a room full of unvaccinated people and no one has a virus.
What I am saying is vaccine status doesn't mean virus free.
You are just strutting around with false confidence (and a useless shield )"I think they are saying the vaccines arent a shield. Hence caring what others do. Would you rather be in a room with 10 vaccinated ppl with the virus. Or 10 unvaccinated ppl with the virus. From what I can read, vaccines help reduce transmission rates on most variants so know which id choose. (Ironically I'm more likely to be in a room with 10 vaccinated ppl with the virus as they are more likely to be asymptomatic, all things being equal. Unless I work for the NHS ...) | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds." The fact someone asks this question shows the level of understanding of how vaccines work is extremely low. | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds.
The issue is not vaccinations its that health and especially disease is a public issue.
Me getting a vaccine limits my risk, but others not getting a vacinne adds risk.
Remember a vaccine is not a shield, if a vaccine was a shield then no one would care what others do as my shield would protect me regardless.
You can extend this to other public goods.
For example;
I would report a crime to the police. That limits the reach of crime.
Others would not report a crime to the police therefore increasing both my risk and their own risk.
If I had a crime shield I would not care if others reported crime, but as it is we only have a crime vaccine (so to speak).
You can apply it to other situations were personal morals and ethics overlap with societies morals and ethics.
Worst explanation ever
You don't have and never will have a vaccine shield.
You could sit in a room full of vaccinated people and 10 people have a virus.
You could sit in a room full of unvaccinated people and no one has a virus.
What I am saying is vaccine status doesn't mean virus free.
You are just strutting around with false confidence (and a useless shield )
Yes but any fool is capable of understanding that the probability of infection from the vaccinated room will be far lower than from the unvaccinated room. Its not that difficult to understand. Having said that - maybe it is for some people."So your saying the risk of infection from a vaccinated room where everyone is covid positive has a lower probability of infection than a room full of unvaccinated people where everyone is covid negative. Nice to see you are helping me understand all this complex information though  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds. The fact someone asks this question shows the level of understanding of how vaccines work is extremely low." Apologies professor. You must struggle to get out of you bed in the morning carrying that big brain of yours around. Love it how people in these forums are even more sure of the science than the scientists  | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
"Why are people who have had the vaccine still so worried and interested in the people that haven't? Mine are done and dusted. Let's move on now. Nothing to see etc. Certainly don't need or want to be carrying a passport around or waving it in people's faces to get into a building. This vaccine programme was meant to be a means to an end and not the opportunity for the introduction to new controls on society. It is causing division and that quite rightly creates suspicious minds. The fact someone asks this question shows the level of understanding of how vaccines work is extremely low. Apologies professor. You must struggle to get out of you bed in the morning carrying that big brain of yours around. Love it how people in these forums are even more sure of the science than the scientists "The fact someone thinks that my statement represents a belief i know as much as a scientist shows the extent of the ignorance - 14yr olds cover the required knowledge on vaccines in biology lessons to know the opening statement is totally off the mark | |||
Reply privately (thread closed by moderator) | |||
