• We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

Vaccine Passports (domestic).

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

FatmanG

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2019
Messages
316
Reaction score
22
Location
Leeds
That is pretty much the definition of a vaccine; it's a product used to train your immune system against a particular virus; such that you'll produce antibodies that can defend against the virus, should you come into contact with it at some future point. It will not (and cannot) give you 100% certainty that you will not catch, or spread, the virus.

However, it means that a (hopefully decent) percentage of those vaccinated with either develop no symptoms, or have greatly lessened symptoms; something which is enough to save many lives (both in the directly infected, and due to the reduction of transmission).
Not according to the Cambridge dictionary: a special substance that you take into the body to prevent a disease, and that contains a weakened or dead form of the disease-causing organism.
The covid vaccine is not by that definition a vaccine. The WHO changed their vaccine definition in 2016 and it fits that definition.
 

sploo

Somewhat extinguished member
Joined
8 Nov 2014
Messages
3,150
Reaction score
508
Location
West Yorkshire
Not according to the Cambridge dictionary: a special substance that you take into the body to prevent a disease, and that contains a weakened or dead form of the disease-causing organism.
The covid vaccine is not by that definition a vaccine. The WHO changed their vaccine definition in 2016 and it fits that definition.
That is exactly what the Oxford covid vaccine is (the Pzifer one uses RNA; which is a newer technology); but ultimately the same aim; something (such as a dead form of the virus) intended to train the body into producing suitable antibodies. I.e. what I said.

"Prevent" does not mean 100%. Pretty much nothing in life is 100% certain - other than maybe death and taxes; certainly I'm not aware there are any vaccines with 100% efficacy (though there might be I guess).
 

Jelly

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2012
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
322
Location
Sheffield
It's a complicated matter isn't it.
Except it isn't...
Some interesting replies but none dealing with HUMAN RIGHTS and NUREMBERG CODE, the mandate ends there friends whether you believe this virus is the beubonic plague stemming from a bat cave in China or that its a USA NIH (tony fauci) financed gain of function experiment that leaked out of a French built PLA bio weapons lab it doesn't matter. The Nuremberg Code is there to give a human being the choice what goes into their body. You may disagree with that choice but once you take away that choice you no longer have control someone else does and that someone may end up like Hitler or Pol Pot. I'm certain that not all Germans were Nazi's etc you know the rest. History is littered with lunatics and useful idiots.
The issue with is that there's a conflict between two different rights, in choosing to not take the vaccine, you're implicitly choosing to extend the time that others are at risk of dying...

Which fundimentally contravenes their right to not be dead...

In not being given a choice, your right to bodily autonomy is impaired, not taken away entirely but impaired.

Thing is when that conflict arises, there's no simple answer because any conclusion will depend on "ought" not "is" statements.

Fundimentally the question is "Ought the freedom of an individual to make choices, absolutely outweigh the freedom of others affected by those choices?"

And thousands of years of philosophy, juristiprudence and debate have brought us to a point where we as a society have broadly concluded that neither right has absolute priority, and the balance struck between the two should normally favour the protection of others over unabated individual freedom.

There are already mechanisms for involuntary medical treatment where it is clear that it is in the benefit of an individual who does not appear to have capacity ("Sectioning") or where they demonstrate a clear threat to others (both "Sectioning" and Notifiable Diseases), which are broadly held to be compatible with Human Rights legislation.
 

Rorschach

The end is nigh.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,286
Reaction score
676
Location
Devon
@Jelly But still we have not made the vaccine mandatory have we? Not everyone who has been offered it so far has taken it up, indeed quite worryingly small numbers of the BAME community have not taken it up and the media don't seem to be talking about forcing them to have it? Can you imagine the first time a (insert racial type here) is refused access to somewhere without a vaccine certificate and they claim it is racially motivated? Domestic vaccine passports just aren't going to happen, the media luvvies will put an end to it the first time one of their preferred minorities has an issue with it.
 

Jelly

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2012
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
322
Location
Sheffield
@Jelly But still we have not made the vaccine mandatory have we?
No, and as I said in my first post I think it would be a counterproductive move.

But @FatmanG and @Trainee neophyte have both brought up "HUMAN RIGHTS" and "THE NUREMBERG CONVENTION" in a way which reads as if they believe that magically solves the moral dilemma and demonstrates that disagreement with them would be wholly unreasonable...

Which just isn't true, ethics is a difficult subject, which doesn't have any "Right Answers" (although arguably has some definitively wrong answers).


Not everyone who has been offered it so far has taken it up, indeed quite worryingly small numbers of the BAME community have not taken it up and the media don't seem to be talking about forcing them to have it? Can you imagine the first time a (insert racial type here) is refused access to somewhere without a vaccine certificate and they claim it is racially motivated? Domestic vaccine passports just aren't going to happen, the media luvvies will put an end to it the first time one of their preferred minorities has an issue with it.
You're not necessarily wrong, although I don't doubt that some people would genuinely use it in a discriminatory manner, whilst others would intentionally attempt to use their race to evade compliance...

Because to quote H2G2:

"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

However, the way that's written seems quite hostile to the media pointing out discriminatory behaviour (which is still very common in the UK, just not nearly as severe as in the past or other countries)...

Which I find weirdly inconsistent with your strongly held belief in the importance of individual rights, given the thing you're annoyed at the media for is trying to help other people assert theirs.
 

Rorschach

The end is nigh.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,286
Reaction score
676
Location
Devon
No, and as I said in my first post I think it would be a counterproductive move.

But @FatmanG and @Trainee neophyte have both brought up "HUMAN RIGHTS" and "THE NUREMBERG CONVENTION" in a way which reads as if they believe that magically solves the moral dilemma and demonstrates that disagreement with them would be wholly unreasonable...

Which just isn't true, ethics is a difficult subject, which doesn't have any "Right Answers" (although arguably has some definitively wrong answers).




You're not necessarily wrong, although I don't doubt that some people would genuinely use it in a discriminatory manner, whilst others would intentionally attempt to use their race to evade compliance...

Because to quote H2G2:

"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

However, the way that's written seems quite hostile to the media pointing out discriminatory behaviour (which is still very common in the UK, just not nearly as severe as in the past or other countries)...

Which I find weirdly inconsistent with your strongly held belief in the importance of individual rights, given the thing you're annoyed at the media for is trying to help other people assert theirs.
I am not necessarily in agreement with the other posters on Nuremburg etc though I do support the principle of individual choice.

As to the media, my point wasn't that they would be helping BAME people assert their rights, they would just be jumping on it in their attempts to be woke and appear anti-racist. But we just have to look at the BBC new hiring policy to see that they are fundamentally racist but to show they aren't, they are going to be racist to someone else instead.

Sorry went a bit off topic there.
 

FatmanG

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2019
Messages
316
Reaction score
22
Location
Leeds
Except it isn't...


The issue with is that there's a conflict between two different rights, in choosing to not take the vaccine, you're implicitly choosing to extend the time that others are at risk of dying...

Which fundimentally contravenes their right to not be dead...

In not being given a choice, your right to bodily autonomy is impaired, not taken away entirely but impaired.

Thing is when that conflict arises, there's no simple answer because any conclusion will depend on "ought" not "is" statements.

Fundimentally the question is "Ought the freedom of an individual to make choices, absolutely outweigh the freedom of others affected by those choices?"

And thousands of years of philosophy, juristiprudence and debate have brought us to a point where we as a society have broadly concluded that neither right has absolute priority, and the balance struck between the two should normally favour the protection of others over unabated individual freedom.

There are already mechanisms for involuntary medical treatment where it is clear that it is in the benefit of an individual who does not appear to have capacity ("Sectioning") or where they demonstrate a clear threat to others (both "Sectioning" and Notifiable Diseases), which are broadly held to be compatible with Human Rights legislation.
I'm sorry but nobody has a right not to be dead what kind of reality is that? We all die its when not if! As for making a vaccine mandatory whos only efficacy is to reduce symptoms NOT transmissibility can only help those that decide to take it. Those who would be perceived at risk are those that do not. Your argument falls down at every level I'm afraid
 
Last edited:

Jelly

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2012
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
322
Location
Sheffield
I'm sorry but nobody has a right not to be dead what kind of reality is that? We all die its when not if!
Article 2 of ECHR is "The Right to Life", which imposes three duties on signatories (such as our government), the third of which is "a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life."

So, er... Yeah, you were saying?



As for making a vaccine mandatory that's only efficacy is to reduce symptoms NOT transmissibility
You can't possibly state that as a fact, because in the estimations of the immunologists and epidemiologists who attempt to measure such things to a reasonable level of certainty, the vaccines are all too new for us to be able to say if they confer "effective" or "sterilising" immunity definitively.

However the data which is available seems to suggest that both infection and vaccination does confer sterilising immunity in a statistically significant number of people, which would see it have a beneficial impact on both transmission rates (hopefully sufficient to drive herd immunity effects) and mutation rates.



Your argument falls down at every level I'm afraid.
You didn't engage with the substance of the argument, that ethics are hard, and there can be no definitive right answers, only a societal consensus which is much more nuanced than the way you're seeking to represent it...

Choosing instead to double down on the gross oversimplifications, attempting to dismiss the premise, by calling on two "facts" which you appear to have an either limited or faulty conception of.

All I can say is it must be nice to be so terribly certain, which is a luxury I cannot yet afford.
 
Last edited:

FatmanG

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2019
Messages
316
Reaction score
22
Location
Leeds
Article 2 of ECHR is "The Right to Life", which imposes three duties on signatories (such as our government), the third of which is "a positive duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life."

So, er... Yeah, you were saying?
The right to life is not the same as the right not to be dead and totally out of context imo

You can't possibly state that as a fact, because in the estimations of the immunologists and epidemiologists who attempt to measure such things to a reasonable level of certainty, the vaccines are all too new for us to be able to say if they confer "effective" or "sterilising" immunity definitively.

However the data which is available seems to suggest that both infection and vaccination does confer sterilising immunity in a statistically significant number of people, which would see it have a beneficial impact on both transmission rates (hopefully sufficient to drive herd immunity effects) and mutation rates.

The Moderna vaccine did not even test for transmissibility rates as it would take too long to find out if you look at what their CEO said. As for you stating its all too new for us to be able to say if effective definitively reducing transmission is exactly why a mandating of something that the experts are not even sure works but in the same post you go on to accuse those that do not take it of basically killing people which is not just unproven but ABSURD


You didn't engage with the substance of the argument, that ethics are hard, and there can be no definitive right answers, only a societal consensus which is much more nuanced than the way you're seeking to represent it...

Choosing instead to double down on the gross oversimplifications, attempting to dismiss the premise, by calling on two "facts" which you appear to have an either limited or faulty conception of.
The substance of your argument is nonsense. You cannot mandate something that is unproven by your own words.

All I can say is it must be nice to be so terribly certain, which is a luxury I cannot yet afford.
The right to life is different argument than right not to be dead which you cannot say would be a definite consequence of not taking a vaccine you can't even say it would make you I'll.

Mate it is scary times I get it, I am not posting flippantly or for argument but there are a lot of questions surrounding the cause of this virus, the response to it, the lockdowns, the vaccines and before we advocate making them mandatory we need a real conversation because there are some very serious people in the scientific community that are in total disagreement with what Boris Whitty et al ad mainstream media are feeding us each day and the data we are being fed is not passing the smell test.
Theres nothing nice about this situation mate
 
Last edited:

Jelly

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2012
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
322
Location
Sheffield
The right to life is not the same as the right not to be dead and totally out of context imo
I was being flippant but assumed that in context the reader would be able to infer the "Duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life" in the Right to Life, rather than taking me literally



The Moderna vaccine did not even test for transmissibility rates as it would take too long to find out if you look at what their CEO said. As for you stating its all too new for us to be able to say if effective definitively reducing transmission is exactly why a mandating of something that the experts are not even sure works but in the same post you go on to accuse those that do not take it of basically killing people which is not just unproven but ABSURD
I don't accuse people of killing people.

Although there are statistics that demonstrate a very compelling correlation between the rise of the anti-vax movement, and increased excess mortality from preventable childhood disease; so I probably could argue that in a more general sense with a sound evidentiary position to support it.

My argument is that the duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life can be held as incompatible with the right to personal choice; and that we have a nuanced legal and ethical position around that already...

There is limited evidence to suggest vaccination reduces transmissibility, so the balance of evidence to date suggests vaccination is a social good.

The UK is currently running "Challenge Trials" where healthy unvaccinated volunteers are exposed to COVID to determine pathogen dose response, which will be followed by similar trials in vaccinated individuals to determine pathenogenic load and shedding, from which we can get an accurate picture of how much transmission would be reduced.



The substance of your argument is nonsense. You cannot mandate something that is unproven by your own words.
I don't mandate anything, I asserted the nature of our current national position on a complex moral/ethical issue, and made reference to evidence of where you could see that played out in our laws, if you so chose to look.

If you mean I'm mandating vaccination, then you only need to read the three posts in which I explicitly state I disagree with it to realise that's not the case.

My issue is with your representation of a complex ethical issue in an unhelpfully black and white way to support your position as being "right", when in fact there cannot be a "right answer" because it goes beyond facts into social attitudes and personal beliefs... Which David Hume articulated as the "Is-Ought Problem"

My argument isn't with your position on vaccination, but with your failure to faithfully represent the complexity of the moral issues inherent with taking any position on it.



there are some very serious people in the scientific community that are in total disagreement with what Boris Whitty
Can you point to a body of credible scientific evidence which contradicts the Chief Medical Officer?

I'm not familiar with any such information, and have been following the COVID related preprints and papers in the Lancet, Nature, etc.



et al ad mainstream media are feeding us each day and the data we are being fed is not passing the smell test.
AHA! "The mainstream media" the telltale phrase which instantly explains so much.

I too have a suspicion of the media, but am generally comfortable that their reporting is accurate on the key facts, and comfortable verifying things independently (such as reading the scientific papers at source, and running my own stats on published data) when they don't seem consistent, or appear to be turning into opinion.

Doing that has broadly supported my view that the media is more inadequate than it is misleading, and there isn't some kind of conspiracy to suppress information or deceive us on a grand scale.

So the second you talk about "the mainstream media", rather than a specific failing you can point to it makes everything you've said up to that point sound much less credible...
 

alanpo68

Established Member
Joined
29 Apr 2020
Messages
32
Reaction score
30
Location
liverpool
@Jelly But still we have not made the vaccine mandatory have we? Not everyone who has been offered it so far has taken it up, indeed quite worryingly small numbers of the BAME community have not taken it up and the media don't seem to be talking about forcing them to have it? Can you imagine the first time a (insert racial type here) is refused access to somewhere without a vaccine certificate and they claim it is racially motivated? Domestic vaccine passports just aren't going to happen, the media luvvies will put an end to it the first time one of their preferred minorities has an issue with it.
That sounds like a game of Daily Express bingo, an example of how many stereotypes you can fit in to one paragraph. Surprisingly enough we have things like passports and driving licences. It is an individual's choice whether they go down the route of getting one if they wish to drive or go abroad.

Incredibly they haven't been abolished because media luvvies have complained about them on the grounds of race, gender or any other divider.

It will be the same with a vaccine passport, if you want one follow the required rules and regulations, if you don't then that is your choice.
 

Rorschach

The end is nigh.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,286
Reaction score
676
Location
Devon
That sounds like a game of Daily Express bingo, an example of how many stereotypes you can fit in to one paragraph. Surprisingly enough we have things like passports and driving licences. It is an individual's choice whether they go down the route of getting one if they wish to drive or go abroad.

Incredibly they haven't been abolished because media luvvies have complained about them on the grounds of race, gender or any other divider.

It will be the same with a vaccine passport, if you want one follow the required rules and regulations, if you don't then that is your choice.
It's not the same though is it? If you don't have a driving license you are not allowed to drive a car. But you are allowed to get a bus, a train, a taxi, a bicycle. You are not cut off from society if you can't drive. Some people still drive without a license, quite a few in fact, no one goes around checking your papers unless you have an accident really.

The passport one is different again, anyone can get a passport, you just fill in the form and pay the fee, there is no test you have to pass to get a passport. At no point to get either of those two documents must you submit to an invasive medical procedure and not having either of those document doesn't stop you from going to the shops or going to a restaurant.
 

John Brown

Social media influenza
Joined
25 Sep 2008
Messages
1,837
Reaction score
133
Location
Stinchcombe, Gloucestershire
It's not the same though is it? If you don't have a driving license you are not allowed to drive a car. But you are allowed to get a bus, a train, a taxi, a bicycle. You are not cut off from society if you can't drive. Some people still drive without a license, quite a few in fact, no one goes around checking your papers unless you have an accident really.

The passport one is different again, anyone can get a passport, you just fill in the form and pay the fee, there is no test you have to pass to get a passport. At no point to get either of those two documents must you submit to an invasive medical procedure and not having either of those document doesn't stop you from going to the shops or going to a restaurant.
Licence.
 

Trainee neophyte

[Known Putin apologist ]
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
335
Location
Greece
This moral dilemma was actually answered by Star Trek: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

Many things have been done over the years in the hopes of improving the lot of "the many". Some that spring immediately to mind might be the Holodomor, the Cultural Revolution, even the Holocaust. All because the ends justify the means. Any act of violence can be justified, based on the "greater good".

Enforced vaccination is an act of force, backed by the threat of state monopolised violence. Are you sure you want to go down that road? I'm certain you could claim hyperbole in that statement, but if you demand vaccination, and someone refuses...then what? The options being proffered seem to be either violence or total exclusion from society - also known as imprisonment. Neither a good option, in my opinion. Far better to a) work harder on convincing people that the vaccine is a good idea, and b) not move towards a collectivist, dictatorial, dystopian nightmare. Ymmv.
 

Danieljw

Those that never make mistakes, never made anythin
Joined
21 Oct 2020
Messages
41
Reaction score
30
Location
Spain
We will be controlled by china completely, within 15/20 years.
They already own/control most financial institutions, industry is dictated by them, almost all of the world's tooling is made in china.
Our governments are all scared of them...
There are none so blind as those that will not see....
 

RobinBHM

Established Member
Joined
17 Sep 2011
Messages
5,067
Reaction score
634
Location
Wst Sussex
If the majority follow the rules we all benefit.

If everybody takes the "freedom of choice" attitude it can't work.

I agree we should all have freedom of choice, but we need to accept the responsibility that ones personal refusal to take the vaccine, comes at the freedom of the majority of others, who have to take it in order to end the pandemic.


If the majority of people exercise their freedom of choice and don't have the vaccine, we are stuffed.



Let's see if the people getting hot under the collar about freedom are prepared to acknowledge that dilemma.
 

sploo

Somewhat extinguished member
Joined
8 Nov 2014
Messages
3,150
Reaction score
508
Location
West Yorkshire
It's not the same though is it? If you don't have a driving license you are not allowed to drive a car. But you are allowed to get a bus, a train, a taxi, a bicycle. You are not cut off from society if you can't drive. Some people still drive without a license, quite a few in fact, no one goes around checking your papers unless you have an accident really.

The passport one is different again, anyone can get a passport, you just fill in the form and pay the fee, there is no test you have to pass to get a passport. At no point to get either of those two documents must you submit to an invasive medical procedure and not having either of those document doesn't stop you from going to the shops or going to a restaurant.
Not sure anyone's suggesting that no vaccination passport = house arrest, so you wouldn't be cut off from society. Plus you could still ride a bicycle even if you weren't allowed on public transport.

Re a passport: there are a lot of tests before you're allowed one; it's just that they're not obvious to the public.
 

Rorschach

The end is nigh.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,286
Reaction score
676
Location
Devon
Not sure anyone's suggesting that no vaccination passport = house arrest, so you wouldn't be cut off from society. Plus you could still ride a bicycle even if you weren't allowed on public transport.

Re a passport: there are a lot of tests before you're allowed one; it's just that they're not obvious to the public.
Actually it seems there are several here that would like no vaccine to equal house arrest.
 
Top