Coronavirus Thread

[Nalis]

39 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

my main issue with it is all these threats when we haven’t even been offered the vaccine! it’s one thing to bring them in when we have been offered it, and had a chance to turn it down. but to start threatening exclusions from society when we haven’t even been given the choice to say if we want it ?! it’s just going to wind people up to a point that they will dig their heels in. i am going to have it willingly despite having covid in jan, but ffs. at least let people have the choice about having it before they start the threats of segregation 

 

as for the bold point. haha. we have given up a year of our lives to protect the at risk group, who make up 99% of covid deaths. this holier than thou attitude really stinks and shows the way society has gone as a whole over the past 12 months

Exactly, it's up there with the attitude of some calling others selfish just because others don't agree with the accuser's personal preference / opinion on restrictions.

[SpacedX]

11 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

See also the roadmap - which is shit, far too slow, but was better than what was rumoured.

Opening up over the three months beginning in April could put the NHS under even more pressure than the second wave did which is why easing restrictions over a longer period, six or nine months starting in April which will still bring cases up, albeit within a more manageable level. Unless vaccine efficacy is significantly better than assumed, it is highly likely that hospital occupancy would be higher than that seen in January 2021, if all restrictions are lifted earlier than the start of May. That's why the government has opted for a slower timetable, with social distancing slated to end on 21 June and has said it could be pushed back further if the data demands.

 

if restrictions were lifted rapidly, we could see a “third wave” of hospitalisations larger than the very high levels we saw in January - not dissimilar to Italy right now. Modelling demonstrates that even with many of the most vulnerable vaccinated, cases among young, otherwise healthy people could still put enormous pressure on the NHS if we return quickly to pre-pandemic life. This is why those that actually understand infection and immunology (unlike some members of a provincial football forum) recommend a gradual easing over several months. And they cite further reasons, including buying time to vaccinate more people, reducing the chance of any variant that evades existing jabs, and giving scientists the opportunity to assess the effect of each change before making a new one.

 

Not all groups will have been fully vaccinated yet, and even amongst those that are, the vaccines won’t be 100 per cent protective. Assuming that everyone who is eligible takes up the offer of a vaccine - which they will not, only about two-thirds of the whole population will be protected because about 21 per cent of people (i.e. most children) will not be eligible, and among those who are, the jab is assumed to be 84 per cent vaccine protective against infection. That leaves a third of the population without protection.

 

Right now, we still don't know the duration of immunity that the vaccination gives, transmission that it prevents, we don't know enough about reinfection and there are unknowns concerning emergent variants. 

 

59 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

as for the bold point. haha. we have given up a year of our lives to protect the at risk group, who make up 99% of covid deaths. this holier than thou attitude really stinks and shows the way society has gone as a whole over the past 12 months

Seriously - how many times is it necessary to explain this? There are a multitude of reasons why we have all "given up a year of our lives" in the face of a worldwide health crisis - it's not simply about protecting the vulnerable. The coronavirus thrives on the fact that we are social and the only tool we have for stopping the virus is to cut the number of people we meet in our daily lives. The goal is to keep reproduction, or “R,” below one (R<1) – with each case infecting fewer than one other person, on average. This then buys time and reduces the clinical burden flattening peak healthcare demand. Also, it buys time for scientific discoveries - the first lockdown gave UK researchers the opportunity to discover the first drug that saves lives from Covid-19, dexamethasone for example. 

 

Because the virus is transmitted asymptomatically, the best strategy to reduce transmission of such an infectious disease involves aggressive, early detection, with isolation of infected individuals to minimise transmission before the disease can become endemic locally. 

 

Also, this is a pandemic - it affects the entire planet, not just you...and that's what nature can do and its what nature does. 

 

Incidentally, personally, right now, it's looking very much like I won't have a job to go back to - even remotely. 

Edited 4 April 2021 by Line-X

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Opening up over the three months beginning in April could put the NHS under even more pressure than the second wave did which is why easing restrictions over a longer period, six or nine months starting in April which will still bring cases up, albeit within a more manageable level. Unless vaccine efficacy is significantly better than assumed, it is highly likely that hospital occupancy would be higher than that seen in January 2021, if all restrictions are lifted earlier than the start of May. That's why the government has opted for a slower timetable, with social distancing slated to end on 21 June and has said it could be pushed back further if the data demands.

 

if restrictions were lifted rapidly, we could see a “third wave” of hospitalisations larger than the very high levels we saw in January - not dissimilar to Italy right now. Modelling demonstrates that even with many of the most vulnerable vaccinated, cases among young, otherwise healthy people could still put enormous pressure on the NHS if we return quickly to pre-pandemic life. This is why those that actually understand infection and immunology (unlike some members of a provincial football forum) recommend a gradual easing over several months. And they cite further reasons, including buying time to vaccinate more people, reducing the chance of any variant that evades existing jabs, and giving scientists the opportunity to assess the effect of each change before making a new one.

 

Not all groups will have been fully vaccinated yet, and even amongst those that are, the vaccines won’t be 100 per cent protective. Assuming that everyone who is eligible takes up the offer of a vaccine - which they will not, only about two-thirds of the whole population will be protected because about 21 per cent of people (i.e. most children) will not be eligible, and among those who are, the jab is assumed to be 84 per cent vaccine protective against infection. That leaves a third of the population without protection.

 

Right now, we still don't know the duration of immunity that the vaccination gives, transmission that it prevents, we don't know enough about reinfection and there are unknowns concerning emergent variants. 

 

Seriously - how many times is it necessary to explain this? There are a multitude of reasons why we have all "given up a year of our lives" in the face of a worldwide health crisis - it's not simply about protecting the vulnerable. The coronavirus thrives on the fact that we are social and the only tool we have for stopping the virus is to cut the number of people we meet in our daily lives. The goal is to keep reproduction, or “R,” below one (R<1) – with each case infecting fewer than one other person, on average. This then buys time and reduces the clinical burden flattening peak healthcare demand. Also, it buys time for scientific discoveries - the first lockdown gave UK researchers the opportunity to discover the first drug that saves lives from Covid-19, dexamethasone for example. 

 

Because the virus is transmitted asymptomatically, the best strategy to reduce transmission of such an infectious disease involves aggressive, early detection, with isolation of infected individuals to minimise transmission before the disease can become endemic locally. 

 

Also, this is a pandemic - it affects the entire planet, not just you...and that's what nature can do and its what nature does. 

 

Incidentally, personally, right now, it's looking very much like I won't have a job to go back to - even remotely. 

I honestly think that some folks think that this virus will somehow get tired and go away on its own.

 

It has an evolutionary advantage there, and so it would be nice if humanity played to its own evolutionary advantage - our knowledge.

[Buce]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I honestly think that some folks think that this virus will somehow get tired and go away on its own.

 

It has an evolutionary advantage there, and so it would be nice if humanity played to its own evolutionary advantage - our knowledge.

 

Isn't that what happened before vaccines were invented? The Spanish flu, for example?

[Sampson]

How you feeling now @Great Boos Up?

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Isn't that what happened before vaccines were invented? The Spanish flu, for example?

Not as such, I don't think - variants of flu as well as other diseases would recur in different forms (or the same form) in endemic fashion until we learned how to defend against them with medicine. Look at what cholera, TB and smallpox did, among other things.

[yorkie1999]

13 hours ago, Kasey Keller said:

And they’re gonna police that how

Same as how the check dog chips.

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

When you see protesters holding up placards saying 'kill cops' as happened yesterday in London, why isn't anyone complaining about incitement to violence? Even that 'kill the bill' placard could be interpreted as being deliberately ambiguous. The police have to put with appalling abuse, something that people like Corbyn conveniently forget when they're stirring up the rabble. Btw, comparing the UK to North Korea is preposterous. 

I didn’t say it was right or wrong. In the last year, we’ve seen countless protests from all different political spectrums. 
 

We are drifting here from the topic but the Met in the last month are very worthy of criticism. We’ve found out they have had both a murderer and a neo Nazi terrorist amongst them. Which they had warning signs too but failed to act upon.
 

Their tactics of kettling often cause the flashpoint at protests. The failure to engage with legal observers and instead arresting them means they lose control/respect. They could arrange a lot of these protests to occur on the open land of commons and parks within London after the marches. 

Back to my point, the vaccine passports are going to unite a lot of people in disagreement and it’s going to put the police in a very difficult position. I fear over the course of the next five years you are going to see protest become more and more organised - and recent history suggests that the protests learn, organise and combat. Not good. 
 

Whilst the comparison with North Korea is daft, we are nearing something similar to say Spain and their relationship with authority. 

 

 

[KrefelderFox666]

Just highlights more poor judgement from Boris and his government monkeys. Putting restrictions on every day life is not going to go down well. A few points on these passports:

 

1. As many have mentioned, until everyone has had a fair chance of the vaccine, this cannot be put into force as it discriminates.

2. Even when everyone has been offered a vaccine, the passports must be inclusive and not impede people's freedom. What I mean by that is some people cannot have the vaccine and some people will not feel comfortable having the vaccine. Like it or not, they must not be excluded. Therefore if passports are introduced they must give everyone a fair chance. For example have three checks to allow entry to sport/theatre/concerts etc. Firstly, have you had a vaccine? If not, then have you recently tested positive and "recovered"? If neither of them, provide a test on the day/at the venue, if negative allow entry. That way people would be given enough choice/chances.

 

The other thing to consider is the current "6 month rule". What about people who had their second jab in Feb/Mar, can they not go to events in Sep/Oct unless they have a top up? Will 60 million people get vaccinated every 6 months? I think that negative tests on the day will be the way forward and the logistics of this including reliability must be worked on (possibly to work alongside vaccination certification).

 

Either way these passports are not a good idea and will cause more problems than solutions.

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, Line-X said:

Opening up over the three months beginning in April could put the NHS under even more pressure than the second wave did which is why easing restrictions over a longer period, six or nine months starting in April which will still bring cases up, albeit within a more manageable level. Unless vaccine efficacy is significantly better than assumed, it is highly likely that hospital occupancy would be higher than that seen in January 2021, if all restrictions are lifted earlier than the start of May. That's why the government has opted for a slower timetable, with social distancing slated to end on 21 June and has said it could be pushed back further if the data demands.

 

if restrictions were lifted rapidly, we could see a “third wave” of hospitalisations larger than the very high levels we saw in January - not dissimilar to Italy right now. Modelling demonstrates that even with many of the most vulnerable vaccinated, cases among young, otherwise healthy people could still put enormous pressure on the NHS if we return quickly to pre-pandemic life. This is why those that actually understand infection and immunology (unlike some members of a provincial football forum) recommend a gradual easing over several months. And they cite further reasons, including buying time to vaccinate more people, reducing the chance of any variant that evades existing jabs, and giving scientists the opportunity to assess the effect of each change before making a new one.

 

Not all groups will have been fully vaccinated yet, and even amongst those that are, the vaccines won’t be 100 per cent protective. Assuming that everyone who is eligible takes up the offer of a vaccine - which they will not, only about two-thirds of the whole population will be protected because about 21 per cent of people (i.e. most children) will not be eligible, and among those who are, the jab is assumed to be 84 per cent vaccine protective against infection. That leaves a third of the population without protection.

 

Right now, we still don't know the duration of immunity that the vaccination gives, transmission that it prevents, we don't know enough about reinfection and there are unknowns concerning emergent variants. 

 

Seriously - how many times is it necessary to explain this? There are a multitude of reasons why we have all "given up a year of our lives" in the face of a worldwide health crisis - it's not simply about protecting the vulnerable. The coronavirus thrives on the fact that we are social and the only tool we have for stopping the virus is to cut the number of people we meet in our daily lives. The goal is to keep reproduction, or “R,” below one (R<1) – with each case infecting fewer than one other person, on average. This then buys time and reduces the clinical burden flattening peak healthcare demand. Also, it buys time for scientific discoveries - the first lockdown gave UK researchers the opportunity to discover the first drug that saves lives from Covid-19, dexamethasone for example. 

 

Because the virus is transmitted asymptomatically, the best strategy to reduce transmission of such an infectious disease involves aggressive, early detection, with isolation of infected individuals to minimise transmission before the disease can become endemic locally. 

 

Also, this is a pandemic - it affects the entire planet, not just you...and that's what nature can do and its what nature does. 

 

Incidentally, personally, right now, it's looking very much like I won't have a job to go back to - even remotely. 

Loads of solid points. And you are just about the top poster on this thread..

 

But we fall on the other side of the fence on this. 

 

Firstly, last summer proved that it's a good time to let the virus 'loose'. There was no spike. In fact, there was a fall. And that with all the vulnerable unvaccinated. Outdoors life should be absolutely encouraged. 

 

Secondly, many people seem to have lost all perspective on risk. Life is a risk. I've never fancied catching mumps or meningitis or Lyme disease. But I kinda weigh up risk vs reward. We all do. My parents, as an example, have become terrified, feeble people through these last 13 months. It's simply not healthy to have such a meek population. 

 

Thirdly, even if every UK citizen got vaccinated and had boosters, variants are still going to emerge from overseas. The horse has bolted. We need to ease back into life because at some point , we are going to have to anyway

 

Finally, just through interest, what's happening in third world countries where they just don't bother? Genuine question as I don't know. Are there apocalyptic scenes Vietnam? Nigeria? Panama? Even the USA doesn't seem to bother that much. 

 

 

 

[String fellow]

Apparently, the entire adult population of the Chinese city of Ruili will be vaccinated within a space of 5 days following a recent outbreak - an interesting (and perhaps draconian?) way of tackling the problem. If that were done in the UK, there'd be howls of protest, but it might stop the endless arguments about the restrictions and who has and hasn't been vaccinated.  

[SpacedX]

8 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Firstly, last summer proved that it's a good time to let the virus 'loose'. There was no spike. In fact, there was a fall. And that with all the vulnerable unvaccinated. Outdoors life should be absolutely encouraged. 

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

On the contrary, last summer we relaxed to early and made crucial mistakes regarding our borders and international quarantine, meaning that the inevitable second spike in the Autumn was hugely exacerbated. 

 

Yes, "outdoors life" should most certainly be encouraged, as should the precautions that accompany this. The problem is, as soon as this becomes the case - this also happens...

 

 

15 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Secondly, many people seem to have lost all perspective on risk. Life is a risk. I've never fancied catching mumps or meningitis or Lyme disease. But I kinda weigh up risk vs reward. We all do. My parents, as an example, have become terrified, feeble people through these last 13 months. It's simply not healthy to have such a meek population

Absolutely - one of the points that I made a few months ago on this thread about concerns regarding the speed to market of the vaccine roll out and more recently, concern surrounding the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine. Prior to covid-19, we inhabit a world of irrational fears, but risk still need to be managed. We also live in an era of complacency and although I agree with you, recognition of our fragility and vulnerability as a species on this planet is nonetheless important as is recognition of the vulnerability of our planet during our tenure.  

 

24 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Thirdly, even if every UK citizen got vaccinated and had boosters, variants are still going to emerge from overseas. The horse has bolted. We need to ease back into life because at some point , we are going to have to anyway

 

They will, but it's likely that these can be adjusted in response. It's also highly likely that vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 will become an annual requirement to allow us to resume normality. 

 

27 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Finally, just through interest, what's happening in third world countries where they just don't bother? Genuine question as I don't know. Are there apocalyptic scenes Vietnam? Nigeria? Panama? Even the USA doesn't seem to bother that much. 

Vietnam's response to this crisis has been modelled around the world. Vietnamese officials took the proper infection control actions very quickly after the disease was identified. Also, it is not a third world country - Vietnam now is one of the most dynamic emerging countries in East Asia region. Panama has one of the highest COVID-19 fatality rates in the world, despite having a relatively good healthcare system. Nigeria, despite being Africa's largest economy has areas of extreme poverty. Nigeria was among the first countries in Sub-Saharan Africa to identify COVID-19 cases and immediately implemented strict measures to contain the spread of the virus. In respect of the USA, the same pattern as here. Any relaxation sees the Reproduction number soar. Given the size of the country, there is great variation across states, but cases are again on the rise. 

[Otis]

The amount of people who support this is frightening. 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

I’m older, have had my first jab but can see the injustices of vaccine passports if they are brought in before everyone has been offered the jab.

The younger generation have had to give up hell of a lot and there is no way they should be discriminated against because they’ve not had the chance of the vaccine.

 

[dsr-burnley]

3 hours ago, Line-X said:

Opening up over the three months beginning in April could put the NHS under even more pressure than the second wave did which is why easing restrictions over a longer period, six or nine months starting in April which will still bring cases up, albeit within a more manageable level. Unless vaccine efficacy is significantly better than assumed, it is highly likely that hospital occupancy would be higher than that seen in January 2021, if all restrictions are lifted earlier than the start of May. That's why the government has opted for a slower timetable, with social distancing slated to end on 21 June and has said it could be pushed back further if the data demands.

 

if restrictions were lifted rapidly, we could see a “third wave” of hospitalisations larger than the very high levels we saw in January - not dissimilar to Italy right now. Modelling demonstrates that even with many of the most vulnerable vaccinated, cases among young, otherwise healthy people could still put enormous pressure on the NHS if we return quickly to pre-pandemic life. This is why those that actually understand infection and immunology (unlike some members of a provincial football forum) recommend a gradual easing over several months. And they cite further reasons, including buying time to vaccinate more people, reducing the chance of any variant that evades existing jabs, and giving scientists the opportunity to assess the effect of each change before making a new one.

 

Not all groups will have been fully vaccinated yet, and even amongst those that are, the vaccines won’t be 100 per cent protective. Assuming that everyone who is eligible takes up the offer of a vaccine - which they will not, only about two-thirds of the whole population will be protected because about 21 per cent of people (i.e. most children) will not be eligible, and among those who are, the jab is assumed to be 84 per cent vaccine protective against infection. That leaves a third of the population without protection.

 

Right now, we still don't know the duration of immunity that the vaccination gives, transmission that it prevents, we don't know enough about reinfection and there are unknowns concerning emergent variants. 

 

Aren't we getting towards the stage of "we don't know whether you are guilty or not so go to prison just in case"?  It's true that if you take the worst case scenario in all respects then there could be a problem with setting people free.  But I don't think there is any scientific value to your assumption that children do not get immunity by catching the virus.  I'm sure there is no scientific value to your assumption that the vaccine provides either total protection or zero protection - numerous studies show that vaccinated people who get the virus, get it less virulently.  I have no idea how you get the conclusion that a third wave in vaccinated Britain could be similar to a third wave in unvaccinated Italy. 

 

And I don't see why not knowing how long immunity lasts is a relevant factor at all.  If we never leave the home, we will never find out how long immunity lasts.  You can certainly argue that it isn't safe to leave the home - no-one claims this vaccine confers immunity - but your arguments go towards saying it will never be safe to leave the home.  So why bother with vaccines at all?  

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Loads of solid points. And you are just about the top poster on this thread..

 

But we fall on the other side of the fence on this. 

 

Firstly, last summer proved that it's a good time to let the virus 'loose'. There was no spike. In fact, there was a fall. And that with all the vulnerable unvaccinated. Outdoors life should be absolutely encouraged. 

 

Secondly, many people seem to have lost all perspective on risk. Life is a risk. I've never fancied catching mumps or meningitis or Lyme disease. But I kinda weigh up risk vs reward. We all do. My parents, as an example, have become terrified, feeble people through these last 13 months. It's simply not healthy to have such a meek population. 

 

Thirdly, even if every UK citizen got vaccinated and had boosters, variants are still going to emerge from overseas. The horse has bolted. We need to ease back into life because at some point , we are going to have to anyway

 

Finally, just through interest, what's happening in third world countries where they just don't bother? Genuine question as I don't know. Are there apocalyptic scenes Vietnam? Nigeria? Panama? Even the USA doesn't seem to bother that much. 

 

 

 

Biggest example would be Brazil, which is pretty much in a state of meltdown right now - almost entirely due to Senhor Bolsanaro's attitude towards the virus.

 

32 minutes ago, Line-X said:

 

Absolutely - one of the points that I made a few months ago on this thread about concerns regarding the speed to market of the vaccine roll out and more recently, concern surrounding the Oxford Astra Zeneca vaccine. Prior to covid-19, we inhabit a world of irrational fears, but risk still need to be managed. We also live in an era of complacency and although I agree with you, recognition of our fragility and vulnerability as a species on this planet is nonetheless important as is recognition of the vulnerability of our planet during our tenure.  

 

 

The problem is, how do you convince people that a risk is what it is when it is abstract to some people because it doesn't directly affect them? There's people in this very thread who completely dismiss the risk because - evidently - they think it will "never happen to them". The societal consequences of the matter - like, for example, suddenly you're sick but you can't get treated because the wards are rammed with Covid patients - doesn't seem to be considered at all

 

You see it with climate change too and it drives me insane because I don't see an easy solution and it adds up to mankind being reactive rather than proactive and that is an attitude that will see dreadful consequences when the Earth throws something nastier at us.

[Buce]

 

What concerns me is how so many people are prepared to accept the increasing denial of civil liberties over this, alarmingly, people who would normally be up in arms. The govt are using this crisis to move further to the right, and very few are saying anything because of the virus. The new Bill restricting protests is a disgrace but is largely going under the radar; Covid passports are the thin end of the wedge too: what's next, identity cards? Apps that contain your medical history? Does anyone seriously think any of this power will be relinquished once the virus is under control?

Edited 4 April 2021 by Buce

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

What concerns me is how so many people are prepared to accept the increasing denial of civil liberties over this, alarmingly, people who would normally be up in arms. The govt are using this crisis to move further the right, and very few are saying anything because of the virus. The new Bill restricting protests is a disgrace but is largely going under the radar; Covid passports are the thin end of the wedge too: what's next, identity cards? Apps that contain your medical history? Does anyone seriously think any of this power will be relinquished once the virus is under control?

Reading posts like this is very refreshing to me.

 

Me and you are totally opposite sides of the political spectrum, but we're in total agreement on these vaccine passports and where it's headed.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

What concerns me is how so many people are prepared to accept the increasing denial of civil liberties over this, alarmingly, people who would normally be up in arms. The govt are using this crisis to move further the right, and very few are saying anything because of the virus. The new Bill restricting protests is a disgrace but is largely going under the radar; Covid passports are the thin end of the wedge too: what's next, identity cards? Apps that contain your medical history? Does anyone seriously think any of this power will be relinquished once the virus is under control?

It's a difficult one to be sure.

 

I think there is a distinction to be made between measures taken to address something not caused by humanity at all (and this can apply to any such natural crisis) and those caused by humans. The latter are often a matter of political policy and are mostly not needed, coming about because a government has usually screwed up policy-wise somewhere (which can and should be remedied). The former, while they can be used by a malicious government in exactly the way described, are sometimes needed simply because nature cannot be bought or negotiated with and all that is left is to adapt to the changes or face dire consequences.

 

Yes, there's definitely an extraordinarily fine line between such regs being used as a positive or a negative, but that shouldn't, cannot, detract from the necessity of them at some points in time.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Bank holiday and all that, but 10 deaths for the second day in a row. 2.2k cases.

 

We should be done seeing triple digit deaths now, last time it happened was 23rd March, been under 60 deaths everyday since 27th March.

[Paninistickers]

32 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

What concerns me is how so many people are prepared to accept the increasing denial of civil liberties over this, alarmingly, people who would normally be up in arms. The govt are using this crisis to move further to the right, and very few are saying anything because of the virus. The new Bill restricting protests is a disgrace but is largely going under the radar; Covid passports are the thin end of the wedge too: what's next, identity cards? Apps that contain your medical history? Does anyone seriously think any of this power will be relinquished once the virus is under control?

I think it'll be studied for years of  how joe public will give up literally anything for short term.self interest. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

31 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Reading posts like this is very refreshing to me.

 

Me and you are totally opposite sides of the political spectrum, but we're in total agreement on these vaccine passports and where it's headed.

Where is it heading?

[Leicester_Loyal]

Just now, Dr The Singh said:

Where is it heading?

Being practically threatened into taking a vaccine in order to live a normal life, otherwise you'll be some sort of social outcast for the rest of your life (There's no way they'll only be in place for a year, why would they invest all this money for 12 months?)

[Paninistickers]

24 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Where is it heading?

Off the top of my head, an official app that details your health and weaknesses would be of eventual interest to healthcare services, police, employers, insurance companies, immigration officials, highways agency*, airlines, educational establishment, sports participation....and probably the anonymised big data of interest to retail and business

 

Edit; sorry I meant dvla not highways

Edited 4 April 2021 by Paninistickers

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Mark &#x27;expert&#x27; Lawrenson said:

I’m older, have had my first jab but can see the injustices of vaccine passports if they are brought in before everyone has been offered the jab.

The younger generation have had to give up hell of a lot and there is no way they should be discriminated against because they’ve not had the chance of the vaccine.

 

I’ve had my Jab but I’ve no intentions of getting a passport. It’s not right, we are all in this together.

Unless it allows me to go on holiday, in which case, screw you guys.