Thank you Cyclefree. A few thoughts. Vaccine passports don’t seem to be something that Boris Johnson would personally favour, so who is pushing him? Priti Patel, Michael Gove or Sir Humphrey? Whereas I would assume that Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf will be jizzing themselves at the thought of their introduction. Papers please, Mr. Salmond.
“Willcock v Muckle” sounds very Private Eye, Have they used it?
@DavidL, the passports may not in themselves be a restriction of liberty. Their abuse by certain Police Officers and other jobsworths, e.g. in local councils, will be the cause of a potential restriction of liberty. Which brings us back to Willcock v Muckle.
Courts are currently shut to the public. In normal times if you want to go in you can but you have to go through a metal detector and your bag will be searched. With my pass I can go straight in. Is that a restriction of your liberty or a sensible precaution for the safety of all inside?
There is a lot of hysteria on here this morning, there really is. We live in a country where the government conspired to get someone locked up and nearly half the people are still going to vote for it, including you AIUI. And you claim to worry about the civil liberties of this?
It could be argued that not everyone who has to enter a Court chooses to do so, which is different to pubs and stadiums. I will be voting for the person who was conspired against, not the conspirers.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Do you believe that anybody hosting a large student house party should be required to place somebody on the door to insist on a vaxport? Or hotels should restrict movement to gain access to the bar? Or people getting married should restrict their guest list to those who meet the threshold? Or...
All under penalty of large fines for non compliance?
Or is it just that we should have vaxports for some mass gatherings but not others?
Student house party no, its a private event. Hotel bar yes, its a public place and those working there are entitled to a safe place of work. Wedding ceremonies, that's trickier but if invite only then I would say no. If they then have a reception in a public business establishment then yes for that part. Any fines would be on those who are offering a public service and failing to protect those using it and their own staff.
Think of it another way. If your local somehow opts out of such restrictions would you still go? I don't think I would. As we saw with earlier lockdowns there is a natural business incentive to show that your establishment is safe.
Of course I would go because the risk is now vanishingly small.
Indeed I would prefer to go to the sort of pub that didn’t bother with such pettifogging crap.
Quite.
We are soon going to get to the point, if we haven't already, where there is more likelihood of picking up norovirus than Covid in any public place, because some people are so bad at washing their hands properly after they've been for a dump that the germs are left all over the door handles.
I therefore propose that all local authorities and private businesses that offer facilities to the public should employ toilet monitors to watch patrons and make sure that they wash their hands in a Department of Health and Social Care approved manner.
You can make excuses for imposing practically any measure on the basis of safety. It's not even difficult to develop them.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
I think there's a limited role for them along the lines of what @Davidl points out..
You have to work somewhat harder to catch HIV in a nightclub than Covid.
How about flu? Clearly it would be better if flu germs weren't passed around at a club. If testing for covid, some enterprising firm will offer a combined flu & covid test, so why not use that? And suddenly we have created a need for a permanent testing process using ID cards.
Well you can't get the flu jab very easily if you're under 50. It's got a much lower natural R too, you've got to be sweating to transmit it which isn't the case with covid. Now admittedly thinking back I highly likely had the flu when I headed out on a friend's stag do in Blackpool about 10 years ago; but most people will stay inside when they have it.
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
We’re so desperate to escape lockdown now, we’ll pretty much accept anything that gets us there more quickly and damn anyone that gets in the way. It’s good that there are people asking questions.
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
I think people are fully in favour of *other people* having vax passports and being locked down, safe in the knowledge that they themselves are wise enough to ignore the law if it doesn’t suit them.
Just as most drivers are in favour of speed limits, but how many drivers do you know who’ve always obeyed them?
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
The public, or a great many of them, are irrational. If you told them that having a mask nailed permanently to their faces would save them from Covid then a lot of them would be thrilled and grateful for the opportunity. It doesn't make them right.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Do you believe that anybody hosting a large student house party should be required to place somebody on the door to insist on a vaxport? Or hotels should restrict movement to gain access to the bar? Or people getting married should restrict their guest list to those who meet the threshold? Or...
All under penalty of large fines for non compliance?
Or is it just that we should have vaxports for some mass gatherings but not others?
Student house party no, its a private event. Hotel bar yes, its a public place and those working there are entitled to a safe place of work. Wedding ceremonies, that's trickier but if invite only then I would say no. If they then have a reception in a public business establishment then yes for that part. Any fines would be on those who are offering a public service and failing to protect those using it and their own staff.
Think of it another way. If your local somehow opts out of such restrictions would you still go? I don't think I would. As we saw with earlier lockdowns there is a natural business incentive to show that your establishment is safe.
Of course I would go because the risk is now vanishingly small.
Indeed I would prefer to go to the sort of pub that didn’t bother with such pettifogging crap.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
By July, how will the risks be any different from seasonal flu?
We somehow managed with that without ushering in a surveillance state.
It is not a surveillance state, it is a protection should you want to go into a more dangerous environment with others. By July there will still be millions who have not had vaccination, mainly children. By December that will have been overcome. Whether the virus continues to exist in our society at that point remains to be seen.
Death rates and hospitalisations are plummeting.
What is this dangerous environment you refer to, and in what way do “millions” of children represent a lethal threat?
There is still a valid question of how much of the decline in death and hospitalisation is due to vaccines and how much to lockdown. We have been in lockdown since the start of January. Just as last year cases, deaths and admissions have crashed to the floor. While so many have not been vaccinated it’s fair to look at how to stay safe while opening up. Personally I think we are being over cautious, but you can understand why after the last year. I would stick to the current not before dates, but have no truck with vaccine passports/tests on entry. Either we are back to normal or not.
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
I think people are fully in favour of *other people* having vax passports and being locked down, safe in the knowledge that they themselves are wise enough to ignore the law if it doesn’t suit them.
Just as most drivers are in favour of speed limits, but how many drivers do you know who’ve always obeyed them?
That is very true, but laced with an extra bit of moral outrage.
I carry my driving licence all the time. It has photo ID. I also carry a second photo ID pass which allows me into courts without being searched. I carry credit and debit cards with my name on them. Why is a vaccine certificate (if I ever get a vaccine) some sort of intrusion on my liberty?
The point of Willcock-v-Muckle was that a policeman should not ask for proof of ID without good reason. All citizens can be asked to establish their iD if the police have reasonable cause to believe that you have committed an offence. They can detain you for an initial 24 hours for that purpose and can seek extensions if they can justify that.
What I would be opposed to would be the right of a police officer to demand to see my vaccination certificate. But if it is a condition of getting into a pub or restaurant or football stadium or airplane then I see it as a protection for me that my fellow participants have that same protection; that the staff have that protection and that this is a place where I can relax.
I am really not impressed with this argument that this is some sort of restriction on my liberty. I can see an argument based on utility once vaccination reaches a certain level in society but still think certificates are probably a good idea for at least the next few years. I also think it is important to ensure that refusniks are inconvenienced and don't get a free ride on the back of the rest of us.
I see we are already creeping from a few months to a few years. The charade wont last long, they will be here for our lifetimes.
That depends on what happens to Covid. If, as I suspect, it remains a background threat and complication for those whose immune systems are otherwise compromised, then yes, it will be indefinite. If we manage to eliminate it by leaving insufficient vectors for it to spread and thus eliminate it from society then they will become redundant.
Are you completely mad? What's so special about Covid? It is being used as an excuse for the Government to gather unto itself whatever power it pleases.
If you accept a permanent national security surveillance system that monitors everyone's movements, controls them at the whim of civil servants and gives police and all manner of other bureaucrats the right to ask to see your credentials whenever they feel like it - on the basis that there is, somehow, a desperate need to stamp on a disease that poses a theoretical risk to a small number of people - then you can justify anything else. We have an obesity crisis - ban alcohol, and any food or drink that contains above a certain percentage of fat and sugar. Indeed, the fat are overloading Our Beloved NHS - lock them up in special facilities, make them work out and starve them until they are thin. Too many people are dying on the roads - raise the minimum age for a driving licence to 30, and hold a lottery to decide which half of the population is to have its cars confiscated to make the roads less busy. My neighbours children annoy me with their noise - no matter, the new nuisance laws mean I can contact the local council and have them taken into care. What's that? You don't want that nuclear waste dump built half-a-mile down the road? It's for the good of the community - quit complaining or we'll have you dragged off to prison for ten years.
You can justify almost anything on the basis of upholding "security" and "safety" - especially in the climate of fear that presently exists. Yet the case for widespread use of vaccine passports ID cards fails even on its own alleged terms. We can see the direction of travel of the vaccination project: the Government's target is to offer every adult the jab by the end of July and, based on the experience with the medically vulnerable and over 50s, there is no reason to suppose that take-up won't be somewhere above 90%. There will, at that stage, be so few vulnerable people left that chains of transmission will inevitably break down and large outbreaks will become impossible, which in turn removes any possible argument for intrusive ongoing countermeasures. The emergency will be over. After that Covid will keep on killing small numbers of people, but we must live with that the same way as we live with flu deaths, road traffic deaths and deaths from falling down the stairs.
After that, if there's still a substantial fraction of the population that is desperate to walk around everywhere in masks, be pestered and directed by Covid marshals and be told to present its papers for inspection twenty times a day, then we could always consider getting them all to move to one part of the country and fencing it off for a few decades. They'll eventually die off - most of them would be old to begin with, and regardless terror of contagion will prevent them from having sex - and then we can repopulate the ceded territory.
More hysteria I am afraid. The only people who would be entitled to see your vaccine pass would be those controlling entry to a public business.
1. You are naive 2. The businesses (or a great many of them, at least) don't want these measures 3. They are provably unnecessary for their alleged purpose
I carry my driving licence all the time. It has photo ID. I also carry a second photo ID pass which allows me into courts without being searched. I carry credit and debit cards with my name on them. Why is a vaccine certificate (if I ever get a vaccine) some sort of intrusion on my liberty?
The point of Willcock-v-Muckle was that a policeman should not ask for proof of ID without good reason. All citizens can be asked to establish their iD if the police have reasonable cause to believe that you have committed an offence. They can detain you for an initial 24 hours for that purpose and can seek extensions if they can justify that.
What I would be opposed to would be the right of a police officer to demand to see my vaccination certificate. But if it is a condition of getting into a pub or restaurant or football stadium or airplane then I see it as a protection for me that my fellow participants have that same protection; that the staff have that protection and that this is a place where I can relax.
I am really not impressed with this argument that this is some sort of restriction on my liberty. I can see an argument based on utility once vaccination reaches a certain level in society but still think certificates are probably a good idea for at least the next few years. I also think it is important to ensure that refusniks are inconvenienced and don't get a free ride on the back of the rest of us.
I see we are already creeping from a few months to a few years. The charade wont last long, they will be here for our lifetimes.
That depends on what happens to Covid. If, as I suspect, it remains a background threat and complication for those whose immune systems are otherwise compromised, then yes, it will be indefinite. If we manage to eliminate it by leaving insufficient vectors for it to spread and thus eliminate it from society then they will become redundant.
Are you completely mad? What's so special about Covid? It is being used as an excuse for the Government to gather unto itself whatever power it pleases.
If you accept a permanent national security surveillance system that monitors everyone's movements, controls them at the whim of civil servants and gives police and all manner of other bureaucrats the right to ask to see your credentials whenever they feel like it - on the basis that there is, somehow, a desperate need to stamp on a disease that poses a theoretical risk to a small number of people - then you can justify anything else. We have an obesity crisis - ban alcohol, and any food or drink that contains above a certain percentage of fat and sugar. Indeed, the fat are overloading Our Beloved NHS - lock them up in special facilities, make them work out and starve them until they are thin. Too many people are dying on the roads - raise the minimum age for a driving licence to 30, and hold a lottery to decide which half of the population is to have its cars confiscated to make the roads less busy. My neighbours children annoy me with their noise - no matter, the new nuisance laws mean I can contact the local council and have them taken into care. What's that? You don't want that nuclear waste dump built half-a-mile down the road? It's for the good of the community - quit complaining or we'll have you dragged off to prison for ten years.
You can justify almost anything on the basis of upholding "security" and "safety" - especially in the climate of fear that presently exists. Yet the case for widespread use of vaccine passports ID cards fails even on its own alleged terms. We can see the direction of travel of the vaccination project: the Government's target is to offer every adult the jab by the end of July and, based on the experience with the medically vulnerable and over 50s, there is no reason to suppose that take-up won't be somewhere above 90%. There will, at that stage, be so few vulnerable people left that chains of transmission will inevitably break down and large outbreaks will become impossible, which in turn removes any possible argument for intrusive ongoing countermeasures. The emergency will be over. After that Covid will keep on killing small numbers of people, but we must live with that the same way as we live with flu deaths, road traffic deaths and deaths from falling down the stairs.
After that, if there's still a substantial fraction of the population that is desperate to walk around everywhere in masks, be pestered and directed by Covid marshals and be told to present its papers for inspection twenty times a day, then we could always consider getting them all to move to one part of the country and fencing it off for a few decades. They'll eventually die off - most of them would be old to begin with, and regardless terror of contagion will prevent them from having sex - and then we can repopulate the ceded territory.
More hysteria I am afraid. The only people who would be entitled to see your vaccine pass would be those controlling entry to a public business.
Ask to see my vaccination pass and I will be taking my business to the next establishment.
The other side of this is that I'm not actually planning to go out until two weeks after my first vaccination but that's my personal choice.
The only time I may consider visiting a place where a pass is necessary would be a concert simply because the bands aren't getting younger.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
By July, how will the risks be any different from seasonal flu?
We somehow managed with that without ushering in a surveillance state.
It is not a surveillance state, it is a protection should you want to go into a more dangerous environment with others. By July there will still be millions who have not had vaccination, mainly children. By December that will have been overcome. Whether the virus continues to exist in our society at that point remains to be seen.
The Surveillance State is coming, however. The serendipitous collision of so many maturing technologies makes it inevitable. From AI to smartphones to robots to nano-drones to advanced Face Recognition
Some will resent this, even resist it. But most will accept it, eagerly. Why? Because, for instance, it will mean an end to things like violent crime and theft. Every criminal will get caught, extremely quickly.
The disappearance of cash, by itself, is already wreaking huge changes in society as beggars give up.
These arguments for the introduction of the internal passport fall apart like a wet paper bag.
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
I think people are fully in favour of *other people* having vax passports and being locked down, safe in the knowledge that they themselves are wise enough to ignore the law if it doesn’t suit them.
Just as most drivers are in favour of speed limits, but how many drivers do you know who’ve always obeyed them?
That is very true, but laced with an extra bit of moral outrage.
Well, I had a bit to spare this morning and I thought I should share it on here
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
I think there's a limited role for them along the lines of what @Davidl points out..
You have to work somewhat harder to catch HIV in a nightclub than Covid.
How about flu? Clearly it would be better if flu germs weren't passed around at a club. If testing for covid, some enterprising firm will offer a combined flu & covid test, so why not use that? And suddenly we have created a need for a permanent testing process using ID cards.
Well you can't get the flu jab very easily if you're under 50. It's got a much lower natural R too, you've got to be sweating to transmit it which isn't the case with covid. Now admittedly thinking back I highly likely had the flu when I headed out on a friend's stag do in Blackpool about 10 years ago; but most people will stay inside when they have it.
Im under 50 and get a flu jab privately every year, until last year it cost £8 and took about 5 mins of my time, hardly difficult. This year I had to pay £30 and go somewhere out of my way but thats a one off.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Do you believe that anybody hosting a large student house party should be required to place somebody on the door to insist on a vaxport? Or hotels should restrict movement to gain access to the bar? Or people getting married should restrict their guest list to those who meet the threshold? Or...
All under penalty of large fines for non compliance?
Or is it just that we should have vaxports for some mass gatherings but not others?
Student house party no, its a private event. Hotel bar yes, its a public place and those working there are entitled to a safe place of work. Wedding ceremonies, that's trickier but if invite only then I would say no. If they then have a reception in a public business establishment then yes for that part. Any fines would be on those who are offering a public service and failing to protect those using it and their own staff.
Think of it another way. If your local somehow opts out of such restrictions would you still go? I don't think I would. As we saw with earlier lockdowns there is a natural business incentive to show that your establishment is safe.
Re: hotel bars. So this is about protecting the staff now? I thought it was about preventing spread of virus in a crowded environment!
Why should hotel bar staff get some sort of special protection? Protection that they don’t get when serving at breakfast? And if it’s about the staff why is it restricted to bars? Why not shops etc?
I should also point out that the burdens you are placing on businesses is incredible. Staff manning every entrance. Not to mention the fact that these will need to be additional staff trained in dealing with recaltitrant customers.
Such establishments already have a legal duty to ensure that those entering are of age (for which photographic ID is required in marginal cases) and not already intoxicated. If they don't they lose their licence and get closed down. They also have some considerable experience of recalcitrant customers.
Thank you Cyclefree. A few thoughts. Vaccine passports don’t seem to be something that Boris Johnson would personally favour, so who is pushing him? Priti Patel, Michael Gove or Sir Humphrey? Whereas I would assume that Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf will be jizzing themselves at the thought of their introduction. Papers please, Mr. Salmond.
“Willcock v Muckle” sounds very Private Eye, Have they used it?
@DavidL, the passports may not in themselves be a restriction of liberty. Their abuse by certain Police Officers and other jobsworths, e.g. in local councils, will be the cause of a potential restriction of liberty. Which brings us back to Willcock v Muckle.
Courts are currently shut to the public. In normal times if you want to go in you can but you have to go through a metal detector and your bag will be searched. With my pass I can go straight in. Is that a restriction of your liberty or a sensible precaution for the safety of all inside?
There is a lot of hysteria on here this morning, there really is. We live in a country where the government conspired to get someone locked up and nearly half the people are still going to vote for it, including you AIUI. And you claim to worry about the civil liberties of this?
It could be argued that not everyone who has to enter a Court chooses to do so, which is different to pubs and stadiums. I will be voting for the person who was conspired against, not the conspirers.
These arguments for the introduction of the internal passport fall apart like a wet paper bag.
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
This is the juncture at which we must remind ourselves that the original and *only* justification for restrictions was to forestall the collapse of the healthcare system. Once that threat is eliminated then all the restrictions should go - and we certainly shouldn't be creating new ones.
Meanwhile in Brexit land, we have the twin stories of the antiques industry saying its the end of much of their imports, and loyalist riots continue in Norniron. Writing this now before the new app bans anyone from saying anything about trade or the non-England bits of Great England that isn't praising Liz Truss for striding the world to sign that new trade deal with Micronesia.
“Teething troubles”.
Which is the new Brexiteer-sensitive name for "petrol bombs"
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
If only they would just be used for that David. You can bet politicians would soon expand them as Rochdale says. I can just imagine Sturgeon with those powers , they would be arresting ALBA supporters as they entered buildings in no time. Have you heard anything re the police investigation of the missing £600K, will the Crown Office be likely to help their buddies out on this one. Also have you heard anything re 2 super injuctions taken out by a very prominent Scottish politician
Thank you Cyclefree. A few thoughts. Vaccine passports don’t seem to be something that Boris Johnson would personally favour, so who is pushing him? Priti Patel, Michael Gove or Sir Humphrey? Whereas I would assume that Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf will be jizzing themselves at the thought of their introduction. Papers please, Mr. Salmond.
“Willcock v Muckle” sounds very Private Eye, Have they used it?
@DavidL, the passports may not in themselves be a restriction of liberty. Their abuse by certain Police Officers and other jobsworths, e.g. in local councils, will be the cause of a potential restriction of liberty. Which brings us back to Willcock v Muckle.
Courts are currently shut to the public. In normal times if you want to go in you can but you have to go through a metal detector and your bag will be searched. With my pass I can go straight in. Is that a restriction of your liberty or a sensible precaution for the safety of all inside?
There is a lot of hysteria on here this morning, there really is. We live in a country where the government conspired to get someone locked up and nearly half the people are still going to vote for it, including you AIUI. And you claim to worry about the civil liberties of this?
It could be argued that not everyone who has to enter a Court chooses to do so, which is different to pubs and stadiums. I will be voting for the person who was conspired against, not the conspirers.
In the constituency vote?
My constituency vote will be a personal vote for the candidate.
These arguments for the introduction of the internal passport fall apart like a wet paper bag.
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
If its a public health policy, the very first place that should be included is the tube. There is nowhere else that comes close to its impact in spreading germs around not just London but as London is so inter connected also to the wider country.
That it is not included is clear evidence that it is not a public health policy, but at best theatre to encourage youngsters to take the vaccine in greater numbers, or more likely the start of a permanent ID card scheme.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Do you believe that anybody hosting a large student house party should be required to place somebody on the door to insist on a vaxport? Or hotels should restrict movement to gain access to the bar? Or people getting married should restrict their guest list to those who meet the threshold? Or...
All under penalty of large fines for non compliance?
Or is it just that we should have vaxports for some mass gatherings but not others?
Student house party no, its a private event. Hotel bar yes, its a public place and those working there are entitled to a safe place of work. Wedding ceremonies, that's trickier but if invite only then I would say no. If they then have a reception in a public business establishment then yes for that part. Any fines would be on those who are offering a public service and failing to protect those using it and their own staff.
Think of it another way. If your local somehow opts out of such restrictions would you still go? I don't think I would. As we saw with earlier lockdowns there is a natural business incentive to show that your establishment is safe.
Re: hotel bars. So this is about protecting the staff now? I thought it was about preventing spread of virus in a crowded environment!
Why should hotel bar staff get some sort of special protection? Protection that they don’t get when serving at breakfast? And if it’s about the staff why is it restricted to bars? Why not shops etc?
I should also point out that the burdens you are placing on businesses is incredible. Staff manning every entrance. Not to mention the fact that these will need to be additional staff trained in dealing with recaltitrant customers.
Such establishments already have a legal duty to ensure that those entering are of age (for which photographic ID is required in marginal cases) and not already intoxicated. If they don't they lose their licence and get closed down. They also have some considerable experience of recalcitrant customers.
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
We tend to be smarter and more politically aware on PB.
Some of us, anyway.
And that attitude is maybe why Brexit happened and Boris is PM
But, at least occasionally, government is about saying "This idea may be popular, but it's likely to have bad impacts down the line. So we shouldn't do it, even if it polls well now." For example, people will happily vote for tax cuts and spending rises at the same time.
One of the reasons for Boris's electoral success is that he loudly shrugs that sort of thing off- have cake and eat it. Great politics, lousy government. Fantastic for Boris, but I'd hate to be a Conservative when the wheels come off.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
I think there's a limited role for them along the lines of what @Davidl points out..
You have to work somewhat harder to catch HIV in a nightclub than Covid.
How about flu? Clearly it would be better if flu germs weren't passed around at a club. If testing for covid, some enterprising firm will offer a combined flu & covid test, so why not use that? And suddenly we have created a need for a permanent testing process using ID cards.
Well you can't get the flu jab very easily if you're under 50. It's got a much lower natural R too, you've got to be sweating to transmit it which isn't the case with covid. Now admittedly thinking back I highly likely had the flu when I headed out on a friend's stag do in Blackpool about 10 years ago; but most people will stay inside when they have it.
Im under 50 and get a flu jab privately every year, until last year it cost £8 and took about 5 mins of my time, hardly difficult. This year I had to pay £30 and go somewhere out of my way but thats a one off.
Where ? All the pharmacy stuff is aimed at over 50s. Unless it is workplace or other health related it's not at all pushed or available anywhere round here. Are you covid jabbed out of interest ?
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
The public, or a great many of them, are irrational. If you told them that having a mask nailed permanently to their faces would save them from Covid then a lot of them would be thrilled and grateful for the opportunity. It doesn't make them right.
Big G would be first in the queue to have his mask nailed.
After assuring PBers he had no intention to have the procedure.
I carry my driving licence all the time. It has photo ID. I also carry a second photo ID pass which allows me into courts without being searched. I carry credit and debit cards with my name on them. Why is a vaccine certificate (if I ever get a vaccine) some sort of intrusion on my liberty?
The point of Willcock-v-Muckle was that a policeman should not ask for proof of ID without good reason. All citizens can be asked to establish their iD if the police have reasonable cause to believe that you have committed an offence. They can detain you for an initial 24 hours for that purpose and can seek extensions if they can justify that.
What I would be opposed to would be the right of a police officer to demand to see my vaccination certificate. But if it is a condition of getting into a pub or restaurant or football stadium or airplane then I see it as a protection for me that my fellow participants have that same protection; that the staff have that protection and that this is a place where I can relax.
I am really not impressed with this argument that this is some sort of restriction on my liberty. I can see an argument based on utility once vaccination reaches a certain level in society but still think certificates are probably a good idea for at least the next few years. I also think it is important to ensure that refusniks are inconvenienced and don't get a free ride on the back of the rest of us.
You can't even trust the government to correctly record you as needing a vaccine. Yet you are apparently willing to trust them to design a system in which your medical records will be shared with them and countless others.
With the greatest respect, naive does not even cover that.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
It is illiberal because the state is the one telling and tracking what you can and can't do.
It is impractical as well as illiberal for bars because [most] bars don't staff the doors or say who can and can't come in. Some do, but they're the exception not the norm.
For ticketed events and places that already check ID on entry it is far more practical than it is for restaurants and bars, but if its government-mandated it is still illiberal.
If its not mandated but companies can choose to voluntarily enter the scheme (with no repercussions if they don't) and customers can then choose whether to visit those businesses or not, then that is liberal. If companies choose of their own free will to participate, perhaps because they think it will be popular with their customers, and if customers choose of their own free will to then participate, then that is a free market solution.
Good morning everyone (though a bright springlike morning it isn't!). Like many others here I'm conflicted. I can see the desirability of 'proving'...... so far as can be done ...... one's freedom from Covid infection. Equally I dislike the idea of having to carry something which demonstrates that.
What the 1952 case shows us, surely, is that such an ID document may be desirable or even necessary in certain circumstances, such as wartime, and that the demand to prove who says one is may be necessary. As others have pointed out, if the policeman had relied on the drivers driving licence as proof of identity, we'd have heard no more about it (and we don't know, from information given) the substance of any earlier discussion.
If I want to go to a pub no-one will question me, because of the way I look that I'm old enough to be there...... the last time someone did ask that question I replied that if I wasn't old enough to buy alcohol, they certainly weren't old enough to serve it! However, if one of my teenage grandchildren comes looking for me...... Granny says lunch is ready ...... than they might be questioned. Because the law says that under 18's etc etc. I'm not though aware of any law which says that I can't go into a pub, sports event, or onto public transport if I'm not demonstrably Covid free. If that were to be introduced I'd be against it. One would be allowed in a pub if one had Aids, for example. Or at least people wouldn't be asked if one could could prove that they hadn't.
As for being able to be tracked using a mobile phone, as far as I know it's not a requirement that one carries such a device. Might be convenient, but it's not essential.
Thank you Cyclefree. A few thoughts. Vaccine passports don’t seem to be something that Boris Johnson would personally favour, so who is pushing him? Priti Patel, Michael Gove or Sir Humphrey? Whereas I would assume that Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf will be jizzing themselves at the thought of their introduction. Papers please, Mr. Salmond.
“Willcock v Muckle” sounds very Private Eye, Have they used it?
@DavidL, the passports may not in themselves be a restriction of liberty. Their abuse by certain Police Officers and other jobsworths, e.g. in local councils, will be the cause of a potential restriction of liberty. Which brings us back to Willcock v Muckle.
Courts are currently shut to the public. In normal times if you want to go in you can but you have to go through a metal detector and your bag will be searched. With my pass I can go straight in. Is that a restriction of your liberty or a sensible precaution for the safety of all inside?
There is a lot of hysteria on here this morning, there really is. We live in a country where the government conspired to get someone locked up and nearly half the people are still going to vote for it, including you AIUI. And you claim to worry about the civil liberties of this?
It could be argued that not everyone who has to enter a Court chooses to do so, which is different to pubs and stadiums. I will be voting for the person who was conspired against, not the conspirers.
You’re be ignoring the great one’s entreaty to vote SNP in your constituency then? I’m beginning to think some of this supermajority stuff might be bullshit.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
I think there's a limited role for them along the lines of what @Davidl points out..
You have to work somewhat harder to catch HIV in a nightclub than Covid.
How about flu? Clearly it would be better if flu germs weren't passed around at a club. If testing for covid, some enterprising firm will offer a combined flu & covid test, so why not use that? And suddenly we have created a need for a permanent testing process using ID cards.
Well you can't get the flu jab very easily if you're under 50. It's got a much lower natural R too, you've got to be sweating to transmit it which isn't the case with covid. Now admittedly thinking back I highly likely had the flu when I headed out on a friend's stag do in Blackpool about 10 years ago; but most people will stay inside when they have it.
Im under 50 and get a flu jab privately every year, until last year it cost £8 and took about 5 mins of my time, hardly difficult. This year I had to pay £30 and go somewhere out of my way but thats a one off.
Where ? All the pharmacy stuff is aimed at over 50s. Unless it is workplace or other health related it's not at all pushed or available anywhere round here. Are you covid jabbed out of interest ?
Normally Boots or Tescos. This year I went to fleetstreetclinic.com, was overpriced but they could offer it, imagine there are better alternatives this time of year if anyone still wants to get one.
And not covid jabbed yet, had assumed that was now delayed til May but who knows?
I carry my driving licence all the time. It has photo ID. I also carry a second photo ID pass which allows me into courts without being searched. I carry credit and debit cards with my name on them. Why is a vaccine certificate (if I ever get a vaccine) some sort of intrusion on my liberty?
The point of Willcock-v-Muckle was that a policeman should not ask for proof of ID without good reason. All citizens can be asked to establish their iD if the police have reasonable cause to believe that you have committed an offence. They can detain you for an initial 24 hours for that purpose and can seek extensions if they can justify that.
What I would be opposed to would be the right of a police officer to demand to see my vaccination certificate. But if it is a condition of getting into a pub or restaurant or football stadium or airplane then I see it as a protection for me that my fellow participants have that same protection; that the staff have that protection and that this is a place where I can relax.
I am really not impressed with this argument that this is some sort of restriction on my liberty. I can see an argument based on utility once vaccination reaches a certain level in society but still think certificates are probably a good idea for at least the next few years. I also think it is important to ensure that refusniks are inconvenienced and don't get a free ride on the back of the rest of us.
Agreed. Supermarket loyalty cards are far more intrusive. And the means of redress are rather less clear if it’s Tesco that misuses my data rather than the Government.
Oh dear. How to spell out the difference between a private company which has no power to fine you, to seize your assets, to arrest you, to deprive you of your liberty. And the state which does.
You can choose not to have a Tesco card. You can choose not to shop at Tesco. And if they do misuse your data you have legal remedies. You do not have the same right s vis a vis the government and it is already taking steps to reduce your ability to challenge it or even protest against it.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Last sentence - what risks? The risk is from those who have Covid not from those who have not been vaccinated. You are turning "non vaccinated" into a disease in itself!
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Do you believe that anybody hosting a large student house party should be required to place somebody on the door to insist on a vaxport? Or hotels should restrict movement to gain access to the bar? Or people getting married should restrict their guest list to those who meet the threshold? Or...
All under penalty of large fines for non compliance?
Or is it just that we should have vaxports for some mass gatherings but not others?
Student house party no, its a private event. Hotel bar yes, its a public place and those working there are entitled to a safe place of work. Wedding ceremonies, that's trickier but if invite only then I would say no. If they then have a reception in a public business establishment then yes for that part. Any fines would be on those who are offering a public service and failing to protect those using it and their own staff.
Think of it another way. If your local somehow opts out of such restrictions would you still go? I don't think I would. As we saw with earlier lockdowns there is a natural business incentive to show that your establishment is safe.
Re: hotel bars. So this is about protecting the staff now? I thought it was about preventing spread of virus in a crowded environment!
Why should hotel bar staff get some sort of special protection? Protection that they don’t get when serving at breakfast? And if it’s about the staff why is it restricted to bars? Why not shops etc?
I should also point out that the burdens you are placing on businesses is incredible. Staff manning every entrance. Not to mention the fact that these will need to be additional staff trained in dealing with recaltitrant customers.
Such establishments already have a legal duty to ensure that those entering are of age (for which photographic ID is required in marginal cases) and not already intoxicated. If they don't they lose their licence and get closed down. They also have some considerable experience of recalcitrant customers.
Children can't enter bars?
News to me, I've taken my children to family-friendly bars before.
Establishments have a duty not to serve alcohol to children, not to police their doors.
I carry my driving licence all the time. It has photo ID. I also carry a second photo ID pass which allows me into courts without being searched. I carry credit and debit cards with my name on them. Why is a vaccine certificate (if I ever get a vaccine) some sort of intrusion on my liberty?
The point of Willcock-v-Muckle was that a policeman should not ask for proof of ID without good reason. All citizens can be asked to establish their iD if the police have reasonable cause to believe that you have committed an offence. They can detain you for an initial 24 hours for that purpose and can seek extensions if they can justify that.
What I would be opposed to would be the right of a police officer to demand to see my vaccination certificate. But if it is a condition of getting into a pub or restaurant or football stadium or airplane then I see it as a protection for me that my fellow participants have that same protection; that the staff have that protection and that this is a place where I can relax.
I am really not impressed with this argument that this is some sort of restriction on my liberty. I can see an argument based on utility once vaccination reaches a certain level in society but still think certificates are probably a good idea for at least the next few years. I also think it is important to ensure that refusniks are inconvenienced and don't get a free ride on the back of the rest of us.
Agreed. Supermarket loyalty cards are far more intrusive. And the means of redress are rather less clear if it’s Tesco that misuses my data rather than the Government.
Oh dear. How to spell out the difference between a private company which has no power to fine you, to seize your assets, to arrest you, to deprive you of your liberty. And the state which does.
You can choose not to have a Tesco card. You can choose not to shop at Tesco. And if they do misuse your data you have legal remedies. You do not have the same right s vis a vis the government and it is already taking steps to reduce your ability to challenge it or even protest against it.
The "cost" of not having a supermarket loyalty card is about 1% of your food shopping! It is clearly not an essential part of anyone's life.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Re: Last paragraph: "Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated".
The idea that vaccination prevents transmission has taken hold but do we have evidence for this belief? Personally, I'd be much more concerned about being in the vicinity of someone who is coughing whether or not they have a certificate to say they have been vaccinated.
I can see where this is going: Vaccinated = clean, unvaccinated = unclean.
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
We tend to be smarter and more politically aware on PB.
Some of us, anyway.
And that attitude is maybe why Brexit happened and Boris is PM
But, at least occasionally, government is about saying "This idea may be popular, but it's likely to have bad impacts down the line. So we shouldn't do it, even if it polls well now." For example, people will happily vote for tax cuts and spending rises at the same time.
One of the reasons for Boris's electoral success is that he loudly shrugs that sort of thing off- have cake and eat it. Great politics, lousy government. Fantastic for Boris, but I'd hate to be a Conservative when the wheels come off.
It is quite common for HMG opponents to be predicting the wheels coming off and they will lose office sometime, but it does not look likely for some time with labour failing to impress
Me, 2014: ‘there’s no way somebody could be more useless, dishonest, nasty and aggressive or a bigger disaster for children’s education than Michael Gove.’
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
I think there's a limited role for them along the lines of what @Davidl points out..
You have to work somewhat harder to catch HIV in a nightclub than Covid.
How about flu? Clearly it would be better if flu germs weren't passed around at a club. If testing for covid, some enterprising firm will offer a combined flu & covid test, so why not use that? And suddenly we have created a need for a permanent testing process using ID cards.
Well you can't get the flu jab very easily if you're under 50. It's got a much lower natural R too, you've got to be sweating to transmit it which isn't the case with covid. Now admittedly thinking back I highly likely had the flu when I headed out on a friend's stag do in Blackpool about 10 years ago; but most people will stay inside when they have it.
Im under 50 and get a flu jab privately every year, until last year it cost £8 and took about 5 mins of my time, hardly difficult. This year I had to pay £30 and go somewhere out of my way but thats a one off.
Where ? All the pharmacy stuff is aimed at over 50s. Unless it is workplace or other health related it's not at all pushed or available anywhere round here. Are you covid jabbed out of interest ?
Normally Boots or Tescos. This year I went to fleetstreetclinic.com, was overpriced but they could offer it, imagine there are better alternatives this time of year if anyone still wants to get one.
And not covid jabbed yet, had assumed that was now delayed til May but who knows?
Boots, Tesco, Lloyds are all 50+. Yr clinic looks like err central London.
Thank you Cyclefree. A few thoughts. Vaccine passports don’t seem to be something that Boris Johnson would personally favour, so who is pushing him? Priti Patel, Michael Gove or Sir Humphrey? Whereas I would assume that Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf will be jizzing themselves at the thought of their introduction. Papers please, Mr. Salmond.
“Willcock v Muckle” sounds very Private Eye, Have they used it?
@DavidL, the passports may not in themselves be a restriction of liberty. Their abuse by certain Police Officers and other jobsworths, e.g. in local councils, will be the cause of a potential restriction of liberty. Which brings us back to Willcock v Muckle.
Courts are currently shut to the public. In normal times if you want to go in you can but you have to go through a metal detector and your bag will be searched. With my pass I can go straight in. Is that a restriction of your liberty or a sensible precaution for the safety of all inside?
There is a lot of hysteria on here this morning, there really is. We live in a country where the government conspired to get someone locked up and nearly half the people are still going to vote for it, including you AIUI. And you claim to worry about the civil liberties of this?
It could be argued that not everyone who has to enter a Court chooses to do so, which is different to pubs and stadiums. I will be voting for the person who was conspired against, not the conspirers.
You’re be ignoring the great one’s entreaty to vote SNP in your constituency then? I’m beginning to think some of this supermajority stuff might be bullshit.
He can hardly vote for Alex on constituency TUD. Sturgeon does certainly seem against a su[permajority, desperately smearing in case she gets a real majority and is forced to actually do something other than procrastinate and blame Westminster , whilst Ollie does the book keeping.
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
We tend to be smarter and more politically aware on PB.
Some of us, anyway.
And that attitude is maybe why Brexit happened and Boris is PM
But, at least occasionally, government is about saying "This idea may be popular, but it's likely to have bad impacts down the line. So we shouldn't do it, even if it polls well now." For example, people will happily vote for tax cuts and spending rises at the same time.
One of the reasons for Boris's electoral success is that he loudly shrugs that sort of thing off- have cake and eat it. Great politics, lousy government. Fantastic for Boris, but I'd hate to be a Conservative when the wheels come off.
It is quite common for HMG opponents to be predicting the wheels coming off and they will lose office sometime, but it does not look likely for some time with labour failing to impress
You seem more interested in which party is in government than whether we have good government or not. Why?
He's probably safe to do it in this case though, because it's unlikely that the votes exist to block the measure. Must be assumed Starmer will collapse in a heap, even if he doesn't there aren't enough Tory rebels declared.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Do you believe that anybody hosting a large student house party should be required to place somebody on the door to insist on a vaxport? Or hotels should restrict movement to gain access to the bar? Or people getting married should restrict their guest list to those who meet the threshold? Or...
All under penalty of large fines for non compliance?
Or is it just that we should have vaxports for some mass gatherings but not others?
Student house party no, its a private event. Hotel bar yes, its a public place and those working there are entitled to a safe place of work. Wedding ceremonies, that's trickier but if invite only then I would say no. If they then have a reception in a public business establishment then yes for that part. Any fines would be on those who are offering a public service and failing to protect those using it and their own staff.
Think of it another way. If your local somehow opts out of such restrictions would you still go? I don't think I would. As we saw with earlier lockdowns there is a natural business incentive to show that your establishment is safe.
Re: hotel bars. So this is about protecting the staff now? I thought it was about preventing spread of virus in a crowded environment!
Why should hotel bar staff get some sort of special protection? Protection that they don’t get when serving at breakfast? And if it’s about the staff why is it restricted to bars? Why not shops etc?
I should also point out that the burdens you are placing on businesses is incredible. Staff manning every entrance. Not to mention the fact that these will need to be additional staff trained in dealing with recaltitrant customers.
Such establishments already have a legal duty to ensure that those entering are of age (for which photographic ID is required in marginal cases) and not already intoxicated. If they don't they lose their licence and get closed down. They also have some considerable experience of recalcitrant customers.
Children can't enter bars?
News to me, I've taken my children to family-friendly bars before.
Establishments have a duty not to serve alcohol to children, not to police their doors.
I think they can’t enter some bars at certain hours. But I’ve never seen it be policed strictly in this country.
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
I think there's a limited role for them along the lines of what @Davidl points out..
You have to work somewhat harder to catch HIV in a nightclub than Covid.
How about flu? Clearly it would be better if flu germs weren't passed around at a club. If testing for covid, some enterprising firm will offer a combined flu & covid test, so why not use that? And suddenly we have created a need for a permanent testing process using ID cards.
Well you can't get the flu jab very easily if you're under 50. It's got a much lower natural R too, you've got to be sweating to transmit it which isn't the case with covid. Now admittedly thinking back I highly likely had the flu when I headed out on a friend's stag do in Blackpool about 10 years ago; but most people will stay inside when they have it.
Im under 50 and get a flu jab privately every year, until last year it cost £8 and took about 5 mins of my time, hardly difficult. This year I had to pay £30 and go somewhere out of my way but thats a one off.
Where ? All the pharmacy stuff is aimed at over 50s. Unless it is workplace or other health related it's not at all pushed or available anywhere round here. Are you covid jabbed out of interest ?
Normally Boots or Tescos. This year I went to fleetstreetclinic.com, was overpriced but they could offer it, imagine there are better alternatives this time of year if anyone still wants to get one.
And not covid jabbed yet, had assumed that was now delayed til May but who knows?
Boots, Tesco, Lloyds are all 50+. Yr clinic looks like err central London.
Err, yes thats near where I live, hence why I chose it!
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
The public, or a great many of them, are irrational. If you told them that having a mask nailed permanently to their faces would save them from Covid then a lot of them would be thrilled and grateful for the opportunity. It doesn't make them right.
Big G would be first in the queue to have his mask nailed.
After assuring PBers he had no intention to have the procedure.
Why be so personal especilly as I hate masks due to my copd
Me, 2014: ‘there’s no way somebody could be more useless, dishonest, nasty and aggressive or a bigger disaster for children’s education than Michael Gove.’
Gavin Williamson: ‘Hold my beer.’
Williamson is at least just stupid beyond belief, Gove is a whole other story, he is a nasty dangerous lying stupid snake.
Totally agree with the spirit of this article. But it is slightly less clear than it might be.
There are no plans to introduce an ID card AIUI.
A cop can stop my car (without a reason) and demand to see my licence. If it's not on me, I have 7 days to produce it. Otherwise it's an offence. Is Cyclefree saying that law is wrong.
Suppose there are vaccine 'passports'. Like driving licenses these will not be compulsory, but like driving licenses may be needed to do certain things. Driving licence for cars. Passports, again not compulsory, for foreign travel.
As a centrist liberal libertarian I completely agree with Cyclefree's general tone; but I am not sure exactly what is being asked for here.
NB Goddard was not a particularly satisfactory person in a number of ways.
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
As to who is pushing ID cards in government, I get the impression that it's Hancock and Gove, both of whom love technocratic, nanny-state solutions. And for that very reason, Starmer will love it too.
I should think that the opinion polls probably mean Boris is going along with it for the moment. If they turn, I imagine Boris would drop it fairly quickly.
Vaxports seem to exercise a certain kind of PB-er the same way, say, Grenfell animates a particular brand of Guardianista. The arguments are worthy and sometimes interesting, but the shrill hysteria is too much, over-ripe, disproportionate, and shows something deeper at work in the psyche of the commenters.
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
As to who is pushing ID cards in government, I get the impression that it's Hancock and Gove, both of whom love technocratic, nanny-state solutions. And for that very reason, Starmer will love it too.
I should think that the opinion polls probably mean Boris is going along with it for the moment. If they turn, I imagine Boris would drop it fairly quickly.
Anyway, just my reading of the tea leaves.
Don't you think it is possible that all this speculation is solely designed as a nudge to get the fence-sitters under the needle?
There is still a valid question of how much of the decline in death and hospitalisation is due to vaccines and how much to lockdown. We have been in lockdown since the start of January. Just as last year cases, deaths and admissions have crashed to the floor. While so many have not been vaccinated it’s fair to look at how to stay safe while opening up. Personally I think we are being over cautious, but you can understand why after the last year. I would stick to the current not before dates, but have no truck with vaccine passports/tests on entry. Either we are back to normal or not.
There’s no point in holding a party when no one wants to go. I am very confident that a large measure of our current decline in cases is through vaccination. But “very confident” isn’t good enough for a lot of people. As a liberal I hate, absolutely hate, the idea of vaccine passports or tests on entry (the latter I think is unworkable anyway) but the reverse complacency of “well we’ll all be vaccinated by July” is also utterly wrongheaded.
Vaccination means this virus will ultimately become one of the cornucopia of irritants to the human race but we are a year or two off that at best. Until then we want to reopen and we want people to become comfortable enough to spend their money and restart the economy ASAP. Sadly polling suggests that these measures may be the way to do that. People are scared. What’s the point in reopening cinemas, nightclubs, theatres if people are too nervous to go? Nationally we have lost the equivalent of the population of my whole local authority area, which is staggering.
We are not alone - Israel and that notoriously authoritarian state, Denmark, are also doing this and there is (as I’ve pointed out) an element of “nudge” thinking here. The mixed messaging on this over the last two days (when, who, how?) really does reinforce my view that the Govt believes the vaccines work and wants to persuade us all to get them. Polling suggests the most resistant cohort is the under 30s.
I hate the principle and will accept them for only as long as necessary but, for the reasons I set out, in the short term, they probably are necessary as a public confidence measure more than a public health measure.
I carry my driving licence all the time. It has photo ID. I also carry a second photo ID pass which allows me into courts without being searched. I carry credit and debit cards with my name on them. Why is a vaccine certificate (if I ever get a vaccine) some sort of intrusion on my liberty?
The point of Willcock-v-Muckle was that a policeman should not ask for proof of ID without good reason. All citizens can be asked to establish their iD if the police have reasonable cause to believe that you have committed an offence. They can detain you for an initial 24 hours for that purpose and can seek extensions if they can justify that.
What I would be opposed to would be the right of a police officer to demand to see my vaccination certificate. But if it is a condition of getting into a pub or restaurant or football stadium or airplane then I see it as a protection for me that my fellow participants have that same protection; that the staff have that protection and that this is a place where I can relax.
I am really not impressed with this argument that this is some sort of restriction on my liberty. I can see an argument based on utility once vaccination reaches a certain level in society but still think certificates are probably a good idea for at least the next few years. I also think it is important to ensure that refusniks are inconvenienced and don't get a free ride on the back of the rest of us.
Agreed. Supermarket loyalty cards are far more intrusive. And the means of redress are rather less clear if it’s Tesco that misuses my data rather than the Government.
Oh dear. How to spell out the difference between a private company which has no power to fine you, to seize your assets, to arrest you, to deprive you of your liberty. And the state which does.
You can choose not to have a Tesco card. You can choose not to shop at Tesco. And if they do misuse your data you have legal remedies. You do not have the same right s vis a vis the government and it is already taking steps to reduce your ability to challenge it or even protest against it.
At some point in the late 80s or early 90s I needed a membership card to go to football. I think this violence related as it was around heysel etc. The proposed scheme is similar. If, and it’s a big if, it stays at entries to large events, then I don’t see it as different to what I had to do back then. But really, it shouldn’t be needed.
Vaxports seem to exercise a certain kind of PB-er the same way, say, Grenfell animates a particular brand of Guardianista. The arguments are worthy and sometimes interesting, but the shrill hysteria is too much, over-ripe, disproportionate, and shows something deeper at work in the psyche of the commenters.
Not sure what it is, however.
Jealousy that others are encroaching on your hyperbolic commentary?
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Last sentence - what risks? The risk is from those who have Covid not from those who have not been vaccinated. You are turning "non vaccinated" into a disease in itself!
Vaccine refusal is a 'disease' that leads to deaths. Those who have not been vaccinated are indeed far, far more likely to be carriers, which is why antivax attitudes leads to a resurgence of Measles etc
Throwing away civil liberties is as appropriate a 'cure' for such a 'disease' as injecting bleach to cure Covid is.
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
Mr Blair said his scheme was initially "bundled" with the vaccine passport trial which sparked "negative backlash" and lead to some people trying to boycott the club and ask for refunds.
I did suggest this might happen but MalcolmG called me a turnip or something.
Its a sensational piece of electioneering by handy Alex (who was NOT conspired against by the government as DavidL claims). The SNP are the progressive soft left of independence politics. Pro-Scotland but probably not a Scotland that many would like to see.
Happily if you are a regressive soft right voter who is also patriotic now you have a new choice for your independence - vote for an independent Scotland modelled on Hungary.
As to who is pushing ID cards in government, I get the impression that it's Hancock and Gove, both of whom love technocratic, nanny-state solutions. And for that very reason, Starmer will love it too.
I should think that the opinion polls probably mean Boris is going along with it for the moment. If they turn, I imagine Boris would drop it fairly quickly.
Anyway, just my reading of the tea leaves.
Don't you think it is possible that all this speculation is solely designed as a nudge to get the fence-sitters under the needle?
Just about possible, of course, but I doubt it. I should imagine hose kind of people who don't get vaccines would be precisely the ones who would ignore Government speculation.
The other possibility if we're being cynical is that it might be giving the hyperactive Gove something to keep him busy.
Thank you Cyclefree. A few thoughts. Vaccine passports don’t seem to be something that Boris Johnson would personally favour, so who is pushing him? Priti Patel, Michael Gove or Sir Humphrey? Whereas I would assume that Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf will be jizzing themselves at the thought of their introduction. Papers please, Mr. Salmond.
“Willcock v Muckle” sounds very Private Eye, Have they used it?
@DavidL, the passports may not in themselves be a restriction of liberty. Their abuse by certain Police Officers and other jobsworths, e.g. in local councils, will be the cause of a potential restriction of liberty. Which brings us back to Willcock v Muckle.
Courts are currently shut to the public. In normal times if you want to go in you can but you have to go through a metal detector and your bag will be searched. With my pass I can go straight in. Is that a restriction of your liberty or a sensible precaution for the safety of all inside?
There is a lot of hysteria on here this morning, there really is. We live in a country where the government conspired to get someone locked up and nearly half the people are still going to vote for it, including you AIUI. And you claim to worry about the civil liberties of this?
It could be argued that not everyone who has to enter a Court chooses to do so, which is different to pubs and stadiums. I will be voting for the person who was conspired against, not the conspirers.
You’re be ignoring the great one’s entreaty to vote SNP in your constituency then? I’m beginning to think some of this supermajority stuff might be bullshit.
He can hardly vote for Alex on constituency TUD. Sturgeon does certainly seem against a su[permajority, desperately smearing in case she gets a real majority and is forced to actually do something other than procrastinate and blame Westminster , whilst Ollie does the book keeping.
Dunno Malc, I still don’t see what difference a supermajority makes to the fact that It’s down to BJ to grant an S30. I’m open to a consultative referendum run from Scotland but I don’t see how vague suggestions about civil disobedience or international pressure change things much.
I’d do a certain amount of nose holding to get rid of that useless dimwit Annie Wells from Holyrood, but certain diddies on Twitter telling me one minute that people should spoil their constituency ballot and then next minute saying I need to vote Alba for Indy aren’t doing a great job of persuading me.
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
What is wrong with you
Deflect as much as you like but the Liverpool venue owner actually included in the scheme supports it and indicates the tests to be taken before and after will be recorded in the app and in a positive test before the event the app will refund the ticket money.
Sensible debate is one thing but you do not seem to be able to be sensible, just obsessed over Brexit
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Do you believe that anybody hosting a large student house party should be required to place somebody on the door to insist on a vaxport? Or hotels should restrict movement to gain access to the bar? Or people getting married should restrict their guest list to those who meet the threshold? Or...
All under penalty of large fines for non compliance?
Or is it just that we should have vaxports for some mass gatherings but not others?
Student house party no, its a private event. Hotel bar yes, its a public place and those working there are entitled to a safe place of work. Wedding ceremonies, that's trickier but if invite only then I would say no. If they then have a reception in a public business establishment then yes for that part. Any fines would be on those who are offering a public service and failing to protect those using it and their own staff.
Think of it another way. If your local somehow opts out of such restrictions would you still go? I don't think I would. As we saw with earlier lockdowns there is a natural business incentive to show that your establishment is safe.
Re: hotel bars. So this is about protecting the staff now? I thought it was about preventing spread of virus in a crowded environment!
Why should hotel bar staff get some sort of special protection? Protection that they don’t get when serving at breakfast? And if it’s about the staff why is it restricted to bars? Why not shops etc?
I should also point out that the burdens you are placing on businesses is incredible. Staff manning every entrance. Not to mention the fact that these will need to be additional staff trained in dealing with recaltitrant customers.
Such establishments already have a legal duty to ensure that those entering are of age (for which photographic ID is required in marginal cases) and not already intoxicated. If they don't they lose their licence and get closed down. They also have some considerable experience of recalcitrant customers.
Children can't enter bars?
News to me, I've taken my children to family-friendly bars before.
Establishments have a duty not to serve alcohol to children, not to police their doors.
I think they can’t enter some bars at certain hours. But I’ve never seen it be policed strictly in this country.
Indeed certain bars may have it as a restriction, whether as a matter of policy, or a matter of their own licence conditions. But its not a legal restriction for all bars at all times, which is why policing doors is very much an exception and not the norm
Just catching up on the thread it is surprising how far from public opinion so many are on here
As I have repeatedly said the public are very risk averse and on this poll opposition is a minority view
We tend to be smarter and more politically aware on PB.
Some of us, anyway.
And that attitude is maybe why Brexit happened and Boris is PM
But, at least occasionally, government is about saying "This idea may be popular, but it's likely to have bad impacts down the line. So we shouldn't do it, even if it polls well now." For example, people will happily vote for tax cuts and spending rises at the same time.
One of the reasons for Boris's electoral success is that he loudly shrugs that sort of thing off- have cake and eat it. Great politics, lousy government. Fantastic for Boris, but I'd hate to be a Conservative when the wheels come off.
It is quite common for HMG opponents to be predicting the wheels coming off and they will lose office sometime, but it does not look likely for some time with labour failing to impress
I said nothing about when, and nothing about Labour.
But.
If the government's only rationale for doing things is that they poll well, the nation will hit the rocks (see Argentina under Peron, Italy under Berlusconi etc). If the government's attitude to those pointing out problems is to brand then as doomsters and gloomsters who are defying the will of the people, the nation is likely to hit the rocks sooner and harder.
This is bigger than cheering the blue team and booing the red team.
Amongst the Lib Dems, this case is VERY well known, because of a small detail that Cyclefree omits...
"On 7 December 1950, Willcock was stopped for speeding on Ballard's Lane, North Finchley, London. Police Constable Harold Muckle asked him to produce his card. Willcock refused, reportedly saying "I am a Liberal, and I am against this sort of thing""
I am getting a sense that the tide is turning for the Lib Dems, and even though its early doors, they will do better overall next month. Not least because on these issues they have such a long track record.
Vaxports seem to exercise a certain kind of PB-er the same way, say, Grenfell animates a particular brand of Guardianista. The arguments are worthy and sometimes interesting, but the shrill hysteria is too much, over-ripe, disproportionate, and shows something deeper at work in the psyche of the commenters.
Not sure what it is, however.
Jealousy that others are encroaching on your hyperbolic commentary?
I’m quite enjoying being the rare voice of reasoned moderation.
Vaxports are coming for international travel, so millions will get them anyway (perhaps most of us); domestically, they should be a temporary, voluntary scheme for industries and companies that they think they will reassure anxious customers (and thus boost a knackered economy). They will also be a useful nudge for youngsters. Then scrap them
Solid sensible policies from a sane centrist dad. Me
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
What is wrong with you
Deflect as much as you like but the Liverpool venue owner actually included in the scheme supports it and indicates the tests to be taken before and after will be recorded in the app and in a positive test before the event the app will refund the ticket money.
Sensible debate is one thing but you do not seem to be able to be sensible, just obsessed over Brexit
Actually if you look upthread, you introduced the topic of Brexit. 🤡
There is still a valid question of how much of the decline in death and hospitalisation is due to vaccines and how much to lockdown. We have been in lockdown since the start of January. Just as last year cases, deaths and admissions have crashed to the floor. While so many have not been vaccinated it’s fair to look at how to stay safe while opening up. Personally I think we are being over cautious, but you can understand why after the last year. I would stick to the current not before dates, but have no truck with vaccine passports/tests on entry. Either we are back to normal or not.
There’s no point in holding a party when no one wants to go. I am very confident that a large measure of our current decline in cases is through vaccination. But “very confident” isn’t good enough for a lot of people. As a liberal I hate, absolutely hate, the idea of vaccine passports or tests on entry (the latter I think is unworkable anyway) but the reverse complacency of “well we’ll all be vaccinated by July” is also utterly wrongheaded.
Vaccination means this virus will ultimately become one of the cornucopia of irritants to the human race but we are a year or two off that at best. Until then we want to reopen and we want people to become comfortable enough to spend their money and restart the economy ASAP. Sadly polling suggests that these measures may be the way to do that. People are scared. What’s the point in reopening cinemas, nightclubs, theatres if people are too nervous to go? Nationally we have lost the equivalent of the population of my whole local authority area, which is staggering.
We are not alone - Israel and that notoriously authoritarian state, Denmark, are also doing this and there is (as I’ve pointed out) an element of “nudge” thinking here. The mixed messaging on this over the last two days (when, who, how?) really does reinforce my view that the Govt believes the vaccines work and wants to persuade us all to get them. Polling suggests the most resistant cohort is the under 30s.
I hate the principle and will accept them for only as long as necessary but, for the reasons I set out, in the short term, they probably are necessary as a public confidence measure more than a public health measure.
You say "What’s the point in reopening cinemas, nightclubs, theatres if people are too nervous to go?" - if people remain fearful when new infections and hospitalisations are minimal what make you think their fear (which has been rendered irrational) will be assuaged by vaccination documentation?
Removing risk, if that is what we want to do, is to do with Covid testing to filter out those who have it and those that don't not vaccination passports.
It's a question of competing priorities - the individual's right to choose, societies right not to have to carry the burden for the inaction of a few. I hope as much time and effort is being devoted to securing the vaccine supplies to render this argument largely moot by the summer.
Anyone heard what is happening to the AZ in the Netherlands that the UK government created the capacity for and has paid for?
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
I don't think it is yet wildly grasped how extensive the government's off the record media operation is. They are running hundreds of web sites, blogs, FB groups, etc. at arm's length
Amongst the Lib Dems, this case is VERY well known, because of a small detail that Cyclefree omits...
"On 7 December 1950, Willcock was stopped for speeding on Ballard's Lane, North Finchley, London. Police Constable Harold Muckle asked him to produce his card. Willcock refused, reportedly saying "I am a Liberal, and I am against this sort of thing""
I am getting a sense that the tide is turning for the Lib Dems, and even though its early doors, they will do better overall next month. Not least because on these issues they have such a long track record.
"They fundamentally change and invert the proper relationship between citizen and state. They make citizens answerable to the state rather than the other way around, people to be tracked and controlled."
Shame the general public, so busy rowing about the display of union jacks are so easily prepared to throw their fundamental freedom away.
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
I don't think it is yet wildly grasped how extensive the government's off the record media operation is. They are running hundreds of web sites, blogs, FB groups, etc. at arm's length
“Big G” actually reports to an agit-prop regional co-ordinator in Droitwich.
Vaxports seem to exercise a certain kind of PB-er the same way, say, Grenfell animates a particular brand of Guardianista. The arguments are worthy and sometimes interesting, but the shrill hysteria is too much, over-ripe, disproportionate, and shows something deeper at work in the psyche of the commenters.
Not sure what it is, however.
Jealousy that others are encroaching on your hyperbolic commentary?
I’m quite enjoying being the rare voice of reasoned moderation.
Vaxports are coming for international travel, so millions will get them anyway (perhaps most of us); domestically, they should be a temporary, voluntary scheme for industries and companies that they think they will reassure anxious customers (and thus boost a knackered economy). They will also be a useful nudge for youngsters. Then scrap them
Solid sensible policies from a sane centrist dad. Me
If voluntary, what is the point? They won't be, they will, in effect, become compulsory. Anyway, I've already got a little piece of cardboard post-vaccination. Shall I laminate it - will that do?
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Re: Last paragraph: "Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated".
The idea that vaccination prevents transmission has taken hold but do we have evidence for this belief? Personally, I'd be much more concerned about being in the vicinity of someone who is coughing whether or not they have a certificate to say they have been vaccinated.
I can see where this is going: Vaccinated = clean, unvaccinated = unclean.
Yes we do have evidence for it, lots of evidence for it, and yes vaccinated = clean, unvaccinated = unclean is a fair representation.
If you're eligible for a vaccine and choose not to take it then that's about as unclean as having a shit then not washing your hands afterwards.
I oppose government vaxports on civil liberties grounds, but lets not pretend that antivaxxers are anything other than selfish dirty shits.
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
Whose chum/donor will get the gig this time. Someone will get rich on it for sure , Cameron will be scrambling to get on the board as we speak.
Amongst the Lib Dems, this case is VERY well known, because of a small detail that Cyclefree omits...
"On 7 December 1950, Willcock was stopped for speeding on Ballard's Lane, North Finchley, London. Police Constable Harold Muckle asked him to produce his card. Willcock refused, reportedly saying "I am a Liberal, and I am against this sort of thing""
Willcock is exactly the kind of person who should be in gaol for his own safety. He has cartoonish views and was behaving like a ridiculous caricature.
I am getting a sense that the tide is turning for the Lib Dems, and even though its early doors, they will do better overall next month. Not least because on these issues they have such a long track record.
Not that much discussion in the story about the Govt offering free twice weekly tests to all (i think last night most were of the view that the Govt was stuck having spent £multi-billion on them last year, and now had nothing to do with them...)
Who they think is willingly going to participate in taking these tests is a bit of a mystery (absent the link with Vaxports). They are saying it is a measure intended to "hasten the departure from lockdown" (without anything further indicating either that they intend to bring dates forward, or are intending to delay existing timetable). It is also a classic example of freeloading - any individual knows that to take a test themselves will have no impact on anything in the wider unlocking. But plenty of downsides if they test positive - i presume the requirement to self isolate is still in existence.
So i assume at present it comes down to employers using them to get people back into the office. To which many staff will say, "thanks, but no thanks".
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
I don't think it is yet wildly grasped how extensive the government's off the record media operation is. They are running hundreds of web sites, blogs, FB groups, etc. at arm's length
Seriously, evidence? I haven’t seen much discussion of this.
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
Whose chum/donor will get the gig this time. Someone will get rich on it for sure , Cameron will be scrambling to get on the board as we speak.
Nah, not Cameron. Gerald Ratner has more credibility than Cameron these days.
Amongst the Lib Dems, this case is VERY well known, because of a small detail that Cyclefree omits...
"On 7 December 1950, Willcock was stopped for speeding on Ballard's Lane, North Finchley, London. Police Constable Harold Muckle asked him to produce his card. Willcock refused, reportedly saying "I am a Liberal, and I am against this sort of thing""
I am getting a sense that the tide is turning for the Lib Dems, and even though its early doors, they will do better overall next month. Not least because on these issues they have such a long track record.
Vaxports seem to exercise a certain kind of PB-er the same way, say, Grenfell animates a particular brand of Guardianista. The arguments are worthy and sometimes interesting, but the shrill hysteria is too much, over-ripe, disproportionate, and shows something deeper at work in the psyche of the commenters.
Not sure what it is, however.
Jealousy that others are encroaching on your hyperbolic commentary?
I’m quite enjoying being the rare voice of reasoned moderation.
Vaxports are coming for international travel, so millions will get them anyway (perhaps most of us); domestically, they should be a temporary, voluntary scheme for industries and companies that they think they will reassure anxious customers (and thus boost a knackered economy). They will also be a useful nudge for youngsters. Then scrap them
Solid sensible policies from a sane centrist dad. Me
If voluntary, what is the point? They won't be, they will, in effect, become compulsory. Anyway, I've already got a little piece of cardboard post-vaccination. Shall I laminate it - will that do?
So, what, you would forbid companies from using them, even when they might save businesses and jobs?
Take West End theatres. What if they discover no one will come to shows, out of fear (however irrational), yet they WILL come if they are reassured by a vaxport policy? You would prevent those theatres from adopting a policy that might save the entire theatre business (and with them, a chunk of central London’s economy)
Your position is absurd, and it is doubly absurd because 90% of the theatre-goers will likely have some form of vaxport anyway, because they also want foreign holidays
Vaxports seem to exercise a certain kind of PB-er the same way, say, Grenfell animates a particular brand of Guardianista. The arguments are worthy and sometimes interesting, but the shrill hysteria is too much, over-ripe, disproportionate, and shows something deeper at work in the psyche of the commenters.
Not sure what it is, however.
Jealousy that others are encroaching on your hyperbolic commentary?
I’m quite enjoying being the rare voice of reasoned moderation.
Vaxports are coming for international travel, so millions will get them anyway (perhaps most of us); domestically, they should be a temporary, voluntary scheme for industries and companies that they think they will reassure anxious customers (and thus boost a knackered economy). They will also be a useful nudge for youngsters. Then scrap them
Solid sensible policies from a sane centrist dad. Me
If voluntary, what is the point? They won't be, they will, in effect, become compulsory. Anyway, I've already got a little piece of cardboard post-vaccination. Shall I laminate it - will that do?
A voluntary scheme makes sense for the same reason companies like to ensure they are clean in general. Because its healthy and because customers appreciate it.
Some people may be less likely to visit a company that is voluntarily choosing to check vaccine status - but if far more customers are more likely to visit said venue as a result, then the company profits from taking part. Which is its private choice and their customers private choice.
If you want to visit a dark, dinghy, grubby pub that doesn't check vaxport status that should be your free choice. If you want to visit a pristine, clean pub that does check vaxport status that should be your free choice.
Voluntary works. It is compulsory that is illiberal.
The sort of people to scared to go the pub post Covid never went anyway.
Ditto nightclubs. Ditto cinema.
Ditto stepping more than 30 mins or 1 miles beyond the mental leash that ties them to “Homes Under the Hammer” and Nigel Farage Cameo videos.
I suppose if the still-terrified really need additional reassurance then we could introduce a system for issuing paper vaccine certs for use on a voluntary basis. The theory works as follows:
1. These people will disproportionately be the old and a lot of them would rather have papers anyway, many being unfamiliar with or incapable of using modern technology (and that's not my being ageist - my parents, for example, are both fine with computers but my mother-in-law can barely cope with text messaging) 2. Businesses that have a serious stake in reassuring frightened ducks (e.g. frilly olde tea shoppes) can then ask for the certs on the door, which gives their target clientele the reassurance that the diseased have been banished 3. The rest of us, consisting of businesses that wouldn't typically attract the still-terrified and people who wouldn't typically patronise ye olde tea shoppes, are then free to ignore the papers, and are not put to inconvenience, subject to unnecessary intrusion or forced to change our behaviour to placate the terror of the minority
Incidentally, I thought it interesting that a number of the trial venues in Liverpool, have now said publically that that won't be testing the internal passport and their involvement in the trial is to test ventilation and social distancing etc.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
The one venue I heard on the news in Liverpool is actively cooperating with the scheme and the scientists and is very much in favour
You mean like those companies used in advertising Brexit who claimed that exports had never been better?
I don't think it is yet wildly grasped how extensive the government's off the record media operation is. They are running hundreds of web sites, blogs, FB groups, etc. at arm's length
Seriously, evidence? I haven’t seen much discussion of this.
Was the story that the guy holding the kill cops banner this weekend was an undercover cop himself and there simply to agitate, confirmed or denied?
One strange issue is that the combination of testing and the volumes being done now and proposed in the future, combined with border controls and "Covid certification" probably would have worked as a 'zero covid' alternative to vaccines.
But we have vaccines, not only do we have them but they're very, very effective ones.
So zero Covid restrictions are not only massively illiberal but they're not necessary either.
I can understand why a government would develop these ideas in parallel to others in case vaccines didn't work out. But they did.
Illiberal and unnecessary is not a good combination.
Why is it illiberal to make the condition of entry to a nightclub or a bar with minimal or no restrictions inside that you show that you have been vaccinated? Don't you want to go back to normal? How do we achieve this if there is an element in our country, roughly 10%, who refuse the vaccine freely offered? Is it not an intrusion on my liberty if i am unknowingly exposed to them in an inside environment?
Vaccination is not 100% protection. Its very good but its not that good. 200 vaccinated people in a club are very safe. But if 20 of them are not vaccinated the risks are proportionately much greater and not just for those 20.
Why stop at Covid? Why not make it a condition of entry into Wetherspoons that you can prove you don't have HIV, or didn't vote Remain, or have the required 27 union jacks on your profile?
Because getting HIV involves an exchange of bodily fluids that isn't likely to happen by accident. For Covid all people need to do is breath. Surely you can see that the risks are different?
To be clear I am not suggesting that they are mandatory because I do not believe vaccination should be mandatory. I do not believe that they should be used for any other purpose other than gaining access to places you can choose not to go. Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated.
Re: Last paragraph: "Live without one if you wish. But don't inflict your breath on the rest of us inside if you haven't been vaccinated".
The idea that vaccination prevents transmission has taken hold but do we have evidence for this belief? Personally, I'd be much more concerned about being in the vicinity of someone who is coughing whether or not they have a certificate to say they have been vaccinated.
I can see where this is going: Vaccinated = clean, unvaccinated = unclean.
Yes we do have evidence for it, lots of evidence for it, and yes vaccinated = clean, unvaccinated = unclean is a fair representation.
If you're eligible for a vaccine and choose not to take it then that's about as unclean as having a shit then not washing your hands afterwards.
I oppose government vaxports on civil liberties grounds, but lets not pretend that antivaxxers are anything other than selfish dirty shits.
To be clear, PT, I'm not defending the antivaxxers. (I wrote a header a while back taking the piss out of them.) Not everyone who can't have a vaccine are anti-vaxxers though.
What I find curious is the wish to be in an environment purely with others who have been vaccinated when the deaths and hospitalisations have plummeted when being vaccinated doesn't mean that one can't have and transmit Covid (I accept it reduces the risk).
I did suggest this might happen but MalcolmG called me a turnip or something.
Its a sensational piece of electioneering by handy Alex (who was NOT conspired against by the government as DavidL claims). The SNP are the progressive soft left of independence politics. Pro-Scotland but probably not a Scotland that many would like to see.
Happily if you are a regressive soft right voter who is also patriotic now you have a new choice for your independence - vote for an independent Scotland modelled on Hungary.
You are usually quite sensible Rochdale but that is just bollox
Comments
I will be voting for the person who was conspired against, not the conspirers.
We are soon going to get to the point, if we haven't already, where there is more likelihood of picking up norovirus than Covid in any public place, because some people are so bad at washing their hands properly after they've been for a dump that the germs are left all over the door handles.
I therefore propose that all local authorities and private businesses that offer facilities to the public should employ toilet monitors to watch patrons and make sure that they wash their hands in a Department of Health and Social Care approved manner.
You can make excuses for imposing practically any measure on the basis of safety. It's not even difficult to develop them.
Some of us, anyway.
Now admittedly thinking back I highly likely had the flu when I headed out on a friend's stag do in Blackpool about 10 years ago; but most people will stay inside when they have it.
Just as most drivers are in favour of speed limits, but how many drivers do you know who’ve always obeyed them?
2. The businesses (or a great many of them, at least) don't want these measures
3. They are provably unnecessary for their alleged purpose
The other side of this is that I'm not actually planning to go out until two weeks after my first vaccination but that's my personal choice.
The only time I may consider visiting a place where a pass is necessary would be a concert simply because the bands aren't getting younger.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/04/online-games-ai-emotion-recognition-emojify?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Some will resent this, even resist it. But most will accept it, eagerly. Why? Because, for instance, it will mean an end to things like violent crime and theft. Every criminal will get caught, extremely quickly.
The disappearance of cash, by itself, is already wreaking huge changes in society as beggars give up.
The future is Singapore-shaped
It's about protection of staff - in which case why has Johnson already said they won't be applicable for many venues?
It's because Covid is some unique emergency. Yes it's a nasty virus and can cause complications but now the vast majority of the vulnerable population have been vaccinated, you can apply the same argument to influenza and the flu vaccine.
It's sledgehammer to crack a nut stuff. And yes I'd much rather attend a venue that wasn't demanding to know whether I'd either been vaxxed, had Covid anti-bodies or taken a recent test.
As a society we seem to be totally unwilling to allow individuals to weigh up the risks for themselves as we emerge into a future where the virus will be a background issue but the protection of the health system has been achieved.
Have you heard anything re the police investigation of the missing £600K, will the Crown Office be likely to help their buddies out on this one. Also have you heard anything re 2 super injuctions taken out by a very prominent Scottish politician
That it is not included is clear evidence that it is not a public health policy, but at best theatre to encourage youngsters to take the vaccine in greater numbers, or more likely the start of a permanent ID card scheme.
Why is that? Because the suggestion that they might test vaxpasses was met with a volley of abuse by many.
Now whether that abuse was acceptable is a different question but I suspect this is one of these issues where those opposed will be much more vocal than those supposedly giving their full support to the march of the authoritarian state.
One of the reasons for Boris's electoral success is that he loudly shrugs that sort of thing off- have cake and eat it. Great politics, lousy government. Fantastic for Boris, but I'd hate to be a Conservative when the wheels come off.
Are you covid jabbed out of interest ?
After assuring PBers he had no intention to have the procedure.
With the greatest respect, naive does not even cover that.
It is impractical as well as illiberal for bars because [most] bars don't staff the doors or say who can and can't come in. Some do, but they're the exception not the norm.
For ticketed events and places that already check ID on entry it is far more practical than it is for restaurants and bars, but if its government-mandated it is still illiberal.
If its not mandated but companies can choose to voluntarily enter the scheme (with no repercussions if they don't) and customers can then choose whether to visit those businesses or not, then that is liberal. If companies choose of their own free will to participate, perhaps because they think it will be popular with their customers, and if customers choose of their own free will to then participate, then that is a free market solution.
Like many others here I'm conflicted. I can see the desirability of 'proving'...... so far as can be done ...... one's freedom from Covid infection. Equally I dislike the idea of having to carry something which demonstrates that.
What the 1952 case shows us, surely, is that such an ID document may be desirable or even necessary in certain circumstances, such as wartime, and that the demand to prove who says one is may be necessary. As others have pointed out, if the policeman had relied on the drivers driving licence as proof of identity, we'd have heard no more about it (and we don't know, from information given) the substance of any earlier discussion.
If I want to go to a pub no-one will question me, because of the way I look that I'm old enough to be there...... the last time someone did ask that question I replied that if I wasn't old enough to buy alcohol, they certainly weren't old enough to serve it!
However, if one of my teenage grandchildren comes looking for me...... Granny says lunch is ready ...... than they might be questioned. Because the law says that under 18's etc etc. I'm not though aware of any law which says that I can't go into a pub, sports event, or onto public transport if I'm not demonstrably Covid free. If that were to be introduced I'd be against it. One would be allowed in a pub if one had Aids, for example. Or at least people wouldn't be asked if one could could prove that they hadn't.
As for being able to be tracked using a mobile phone, as far as I know it's not a requirement that one carries such a device. Might be convenient, but it's not essential.
And not covid jabbed yet, had assumed that was now delayed til May but who knows?
You can choose not to have a Tesco card. You can choose not to shop at Tesco. And if they do misuse your data you have legal remedies. You do not have the same right s vis a vis the government and it is already taking steps to reduce your ability to challenge it or even protest against it.
https://twitter.com/mhairihunter/status/1378841894541787142?s=21
News to me, I've taken my children to family-friendly bars before.
Establishments have a duty not to serve alcohol to children, not to police their doors.
The idea that vaccination prevents transmission has taken hold but do we have evidence for this belief? Personally, I'd be much more concerned about being in the vicinity of someone who is coughing whether or not they have a certificate to say they have been vaccinated.
I can see where this is going: Vaccinated = clean, unvaccinated = unclean.
Gavin Williamson: ‘Hold my beer.’
There are no plans to introduce an ID card AIUI.
A cop can stop my car (without a reason) and demand to see my licence. If it's not on me, I have 7 days to produce it. Otherwise it's an offence. Is Cyclefree saying that law is wrong.
Suppose there are vaccine 'passports'. Like driving licenses these will not be compulsory, but like driving licenses may be needed to do certain things. Driving licence for cars. Passports, again not compulsory, for foreign travel.
As a centrist liberal libertarian I completely agree with Cyclefree's general tone; but I am not sure exactly what is being asked for here.
NB Goddard was not a particularly satisfactory person in a number of ways.
https://www.lsesu.com/pageassets/activities/awardsandrecognition/bla/Law-article.pdf
I should think that the opinion polls probably mean Boris is going along with it for the moment. If they turn, I imagine Boris would drop it fairly quickly.
Anyway, just my reading of the tea leaves.
Not sure what it is, however.
Vaccination means this virus will ultimately become one of the cornucopia of irritants to the human race but we are a year or two off that at best. Until then we want to reopen and we want people to become comfortable enough to spend their money and restart the economy ASAP. Sadly polling suggests that these measures may be the way to do that. People are scared. What’s the point in reopening cinemas, nightclubs, theatres if people are too nervous to go? Nationally we have lost the equivalent of the population of my whole local authority area, which is staggering.
We are not alone - Israel and that notoriously authoritarian state, Denmark, are also doing this and there is (as I’ve pointed out) an element of “nudge” thinking here. The mixed messaging on this over the last two days (when, who, how?) really does reinforce my view that the Govt believes the vaccines work and wants to persuade us all to get them. Polling suggests the most resistant cohort is the under 30s.
I hate the principle and will accept them for only as long as necessary but, for the reasons I set out, in the short term, they probably are necessary as a public confidence measure more than a public health measure.
Throwing away civil liberties is as appropriate a 'cure' for such a 'disease' as injecting bleach to cure Covid is.
Mr Blair said his scheme was initially "bundled" with the vaccine passport trial which sparked "negative backlash" and lead to some people trying to boycott the club and ask for refunds.
Happily if you are a regressive soft right voter who is also patriotic now you have a new choice for your independence - vote for an independent Scotland modelled on Hungary.
The other possibility if we're being cynical is that it might be giving the hyperactive Gove something to keep him busy.
Ditto nightclubs.
Ditto cinema.
Ditto stepping more than 30 mins or 1 miles beyond the mental leash that ties them to “Homes Under the Hammer” and Nigel Farage Cameo videos.
I’d do a certain amount of nose holding to get rid of that useless dimwit Annie Wells from Holyrood, but certain diddies on Twitter telling me one minute that people should spoil their constituency ballot and then next minute saying I need to vote Alba for Indy aren’t doing a great job of persuading me.
Deflect as much as you like but the Liverpool venue owner actually included in the scheme supports it and indicates the tests to be taken before and after will be recorded in the app and in a positive test before the event the app will refund the ticket money.
Sensible debate is one thing but you do not seem to be able to be sensible, just obsessed over Brexit
But.
If the government's only rationale for doing things is that they poll well, the nation will hit the rocks (see Argentina under Peron, Italy under Berlusconi etc). If the government's attitude to those pointing out problems is to brand then as doomsters and gloomsters who are defying the will of the people, the nation is likely to hit the rocks sooner and harder.
This is bigger than cheering the blue team and booing the red team.
"On 7 December 1950, Willcock was stopped for speeding on Ballard's Lane, North Finchley, London. Police Constable Harold Muckle asked him to produce his card. Willcock refused, reportedly saying "I am a Liberal, and I am against this sort of thing""
I am getting a sense that the tide is turning for the Lib Dems, and even though its early doors, they will do better overall next month. Not least because on these issues they have such a long track record.
Vaxports are coming for international travel, so millions will get them anyway (perhaps most of us); domestically, they should be a temporary, voluntary scheme for industries and companies that they think they will reassure anxious customers (and thus boost a knackered economy). They will also be a useful nudge for youngsters. Then scrap them
Solid sensible policies from a sane centrist dad. Me
Removing risk, if that is what we want to do, is to do with Covid testing to filter out those who have it and those that don't not vaccination passports.
Like "Income Tax".
It's a question of competing priorities - the individual's right to choose, societies right not to have to carry the burden for the inaction of a few. I hope as much time and effort is being devoted to securing the vaccine supplies to render this argument largely moot by the summer.
Anyone heard what is happening to the AZ in the Netherlands that the UK government created the capacity for and has paid for?
Outstanding piece!
One of the best on PB for a very long time.
"They fundamentally change and invert the proper relationship between citizen and state. They make citizens answerable to the state rather than the other way around, people to be tracked and controlled."
Shame the general public, so busy rowing about the display of union jacks are so easily prepared to throw their fundamental freedom away.
If you're eligible for a vaccine and choose not to take it then that's about as unclean as having a shit then not washing your hands afterwards.
I oppose government vaxports on civil liberties grounds, but lets not pretend that antivaxxers are anything other than selfish dirty shits.
Willcock is exactly the kind of person who should be in gaol for his own safety. He has cartoonish views and was behaving like a ridiculous caricature. You can detect all this .... from Tallinn.
Who they think is willingly going to participate in taking these tests is a bit of a mystery (absent the link with Vaxports). They are saying it is a measure intended to "hasten the departure from lockdown" (without anything further indicating either that they intend to bring dates forward, or are intending to delay existing timetable). It is also a classic example of freeloading - any individual knows that to take a test themselves will have no impact on anything in the wider unlocking. But plenty of downsides if they test positive - i presume the requirement to self isolate is still in existence.
So i assume at present it comes down to employers using them to get people back into the office. To which many staff will say, "thanks, but no thanks".
I haven’t seen much discussion of this.
Gerald Ratner has more credibility than Cameron these days.
Take West End theatres. What if they discover no one will come to shows, out of fear (however irrational), yet they WILL come if they are reassured by a vaxport policy? You would prevent those theatres from adopting a policy that might save the entire theatre business (and with them, a chunk of central London’s economy)
Your position is absurd, and it is doubly absurd because 90% of the theatre-goers will likely have some form of vaxport anyway, because they also want foreign holidays
Some people may be less likely to visit a company that is voluntarily choosing to check vaccine status - but if far more customers are more likely to visit said venue as a result, then the company profits from taking part. Which is its private choice and their customers private choice.
If you want to visit a dark, dinghy, grubby pub that doesn't check vaxport status that should be your free choice. If you want to visit a pristine, clean pub that does check vaxport status that should be your free choice.
Voluntary works. It is compulsory that is illiberal.
1. These people will disproportionately be the old and a lot of them would rather have papers anyway, many being unfamiliar with or incapable of using modern technology (and that's not my being ageist - my parents, for example, are both fine with computers but my mother-in-law can barely cope with text messaging)
2. Businesses that have a serious stake in reassuring frightened ducks (e.g. frilly olde tea shoppes) can then ask for the certs on the door, which gives their target clientele the reassurance that the diseased have been banished
3. The rest of us, consisting of businesses that wouldn't typically attract the still-terrified and people who wouldn't typically patronise ye olde tea shoppes, are then free to ignore the papers, and are not put to inconvenience, subject to unnecessary intrusion or forced to change our behaviour to placate the terror of the minority
That I could live with.
What I find curious is the wish to be in an environment purely with others who have been vaccinated when the deaths and hospitalisations have plummeted when being vaccinated doesn't mean that one can't have and transmit Covid (I accept it reduces the risk).