Covid passports

[LiberalFox]

I think it suits the government to do things which blame-shift onto the public so I wouldn't be surprised. Also appeals to the "something must be done, this is something so it must be done" mentality. I'm very unconvinced it's worthwhile but if they want to do it they won't ask me anyway. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, PAPA LAZAROU said:

To prove what exactly? It is an admitted fact  by the government and scientists that having jabs neither stops you from getting covid nor from passing it on so what is the point? you show your passport you go into the ground /  Venue and you have unknowingly contracted covid the day before any symptoms have yet shown up. No one including you is wearing a mask in the ground and you then  go in and pass it on. So I ask again what IS the point? And on your point on trust , do you realise the government has allowed the makers of the jabs to have complete legal immunity from prosecution by anyone who has had the jab if at a later date it all goes tits up?

 

Those goons on the gates at Saturdays match had no legal right to stand like they did in an intimidating way and ask you for any sort of proof whatso ever. but you can see what's coming a mile off, it's all about control.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext#seccestitle160

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1

 

In the interest of preventing misinformation and making it clear that the "scientists" said no such thing, even if the government did.

[Soup]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext#seccestitle160

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1

 

In the interest of preventing misinformation and making it clear that the "scientists" said no such thing, even if the government did.

Does it not matter at all that the biggest funder of The Lancet is also in bed with one of the biggest vaccine manufacturers? Is there not a conflict of interest there? You'll obviously know more than me about this kind of stuff. It does seem odd to me but maybe it's normal and I'm probably over thinking things, you know me 

 

[RonnieTodger]

Not for me. 

 

You can't enforce it on public transport, so it seems unfair to do so in pubs/restaurants. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Soup said:

Does it not matter at all that the biggest funder of The Lancet is also in bed with one of the biggest vaccine manufacturers? Is there not a conflict of interest there? You'll obviously know more than me about this kind of stuff. It does seem odd to me but maybe it's normal and I'm probably over thinking things, you know me 

 

A fair concern to have and I understand. 

 

I can find other sources that say exactly the same thing if you request.

 

I won't say the peer review journal process is perfect, because it's not, but it's still by far the most reliable source of scientific discovery and fact about the natural world out there.

[Soup]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

A fair concern to have and I understand. 

 

I can find other sources that say exactly the same thing if you request.

 

I won't say the peer review journal process is perfect, because it's not, but it's still by far the most reliable source of scientific discovery and fact about the natural world out there.

Ok mate. I always value what you say. I don't trust the mega rich that's my problem

[PAPA LAZAROU]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext#seccestitle160

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v1

 

In the interest of preventing misinformation and making it clear that the "scientists" said no such thing, even if the government did.

Right so you admit the government are lying then?  because they certainly have said it does not prevent you getting it or passing it on.

[Bert]

Should we have flu passports too? 

[Otis]

Report from the BBC - Lancet. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59077036

 

Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.

 

According to the study, which ran from September 2020 to September 2021 and included 440 households in London and Bolton doing PCR Covid tests:

• People who are double jabbed have a lower, but still appreciable, risk of becoming infected with the Delta variant compared with unvaccinated people
• They also appear to be just as infectious
• Vaccinated people clear the infection more quickly, but their peak viral load - when people are most infectious - is similar to that seen in unvaccinated people
• This may explain why they can still readily pass on the virus in household settings

 

[yorkie1999]

Who's going to police vaccine passports into venues?

    This will all come down to "you've had the opportunity to be vaccinated so if you catch it, it's you're own problem" simply because the NHS will eventually have to either turn down or restrict the amount of covid admisions in order to both catch up and cater for the other illnesses and operations that are required.

Edited 2 November 2021 by yorkie1999

[leicsmac]

49 minutes ago, Soup said:

Ok mate. I always value what you say. I don't trust the mega rich that's my problem

And nor should anyone, particularly when money gives power and power corrupts, so totally with you there.

 

The scientific community is, by and large, not all that rich though.

 

43 minutes ago, PAPA LAZAROU said:

Right so you admit the government are lying then?  because they certainly have said it does not prevent you getting it or passing it on.

I think if they said that they were misunderstanding or lying, yeah.

 

22 minutes ago, Otis said:

Report from the BBC - Lancet. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59077036

 

Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed.

 

According to the study, which ran from September 2020 to September 2021 and included 440 households in London and Bolton doing PCR Covid tests:

• People who are double jabbed have a lower, but still appreciable, risk of becoming infected with the Delta variant compared with unvaccinated people
• They also appear to be just as infectious
• Vaccinated people clear the infection more quickly, but their peak viral load - when people are most infectious - is similar to that seen in unvaccinated people
• This may explain why they can still readily pass on the virus in household settings

 

From the exact Lancet article i posted above, yes.

 

The error I was addressing, to be specific,  is the assertion by the OP that the vaccine doesn't prevent catching the thing. Though to be honest, there's studies out there that suggest it *does* reduce transmission, too. Evidently there are other factors so far unaccounted for here.

[leicsmac]

However, on the topic itself, I'm against the idea of a Covid passport by and large because it's pretty much unenforceable, as other folks have said.

 

Just have to cross one's fingers and hope that enough people actually care about other people around them.

[Otis]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And nor should anyone, particularly when money gives power and power corrupts, so totally with you there.

 

The scientific community is, by and large, not all that rich though.

 

I think if they said that they were misunderstanding or lying, yeah.

 

From the exact Lancet article i posted above, yes.

 

The error I was addressing, to be specific,  is the assertion by the OP that the vaccine doesn't prevent catching the thing. Though to be honest, there's studies out there that suggest it *does* reduce transmission, too. Evidently there are other factors so far unaccounted for here.

Of course. But it'snot a clear cut that the vaccine makes you safe as we all know. Given what we know, I would suggest vaccine passports have little benefit. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Otis said:

Of course. But it'snot a clear cut that the vaccine makes you safe as we all know. Given what we know, I would suggest vaccine passports have little benefit. 

Given what we all know, I'd say that it's uncertain that vaccine passports would be of benefit from this standpoint IMO.

 

Of course, again, the idea is totally impractical due to unenforceability.

[HighPeakFox]

*Observes topic and OP*

 

Not playing.

[Bert]

6 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

*Observes topic and OP*

 

Not playing.

So why even bother commenting at all then?

[yorkie1999]

Just now, Bert said:

So why even bother commenting at all then?

Cos he is playing really,

[Carl the Llama]

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, Bert said:

Should we have flu passports too? 

in the old days, wherever i flu to, i needed a passport !

 

sorry ........

[PAPA LAZAROU]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

And nor should anyone, particularly when money gives power and power corrupts, so totally with you there.

 

The scientific community is, by and large, not all that rich though.

 

I think if they said that they were misunderstanding or lying, yeah.

 

From the exact Lancet article i posted above, yes.

 

The error I was addressing, to be specific,  is the assertion by the OP that the vaccine doesn't prevent catching the thing. Though to be honest, there's studies out there that suggest it *does* reduce transmission, too. Evidently there are other factors so far unaccounted for here.

So it was not an " error " then is was just like the rest an opinion?

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, PAPA LAZAROU said:

So it was not an " error " then is was just like the rest an opinion?

The error was, and I quote: "is an admitted fact by [the government and] scientists that having jabs neither stops you from getting covid nor from passing it on" (key word italicised for emphasis there)

 

This is simply not true as the data is at worst inconclusive and at best suggest the exact opposite.

 

If the government said such a thing, then they were mistaken, but I'm damn sure that no scientific finding has backed the claim made here and, with respect and apologies, I felt the need to point that out lest anyone else see and be convinced by it. Misinformation on matters of science and people buying into it is part of the reason the world is in such a mess right now.

[hejammy]

From a selfish point of view, if I am double vaccinated, and double vaccinated people are less likely to catch COVID-19 and when they do they are able to eliminate the virus quicker than those that are not, then YES i am in favour of being around other people who are double vaccinated so yes I am in favour of COVID passports. The issue of government control is actually a secondary factor for me, regardless of this is their primary reason or not. Also yes the peak viral load is similar to those unvaccinated according to some journals, however what is the data for the curve as to how long they are infectious for comparatively to those unvaccinated and how much difference there is in viral load either side of the peak viral load. 

 

Ultimately it's choice. If you chose not to get vaccinated then you should also accept the consequences of that. 

[hejammy]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The error was, and I quote: "is an admitted fact by [the government and] scientists that having jabs neither stops you from getting covid nor from passing it on" (key word italicised for emphasis there)

 

This is simply not true as the data is at worst inconclusive and at best suggest the exact opposite.

 

If the government said such a thing, then they were mistaken, but I'm damn sure that no scientific finding has backed the claim made here and, with respect and apologies, I felt the need to point that out lest anyone else see and be convinced by it. Misinformation on matters of science and people buying into it is part of the reason the world is in such a mess right now.

100% agree with this, so much rubbish and rhetoric spewing out on social media and other platforms. Leave the science to the scientists 

[PAPA LAZAROU]

58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The error was, and I quote: "is an admitted fact by [the government and] scientists that having jabs neither stops you from getting covid nor from passing it on" (key word italicised for emphasis there)

 

This is simply not true as the data is at worst inconclusive and at best suggest the exact opposite.

 

If the government said such a thing, then they were mistaken, but I'm damn sure that no scientific finding has backed the claim made here and, with respect and apologies, I felt the need to point that out lest anyone else see and be convinced by it. Misinformation on matters of science and people buying into it is part of the reason the world is in such a mess right now.

And neither has any government or scientist claimed that having the jab stops you from getting it or passing it on. That is not an opinion that is a fact. Nowhere has it ever been claimed that any vaccine prevents infection from Covid or prevents you passing it on. If it did then it could actually claim to be a vaccine ( which it clearly is not ) Please tell me one instance where the government or any scientist has said it will prevent it? you won't find it anywhere because if you had the jab and then contracted it you could sue the government for misinterpretation.

 

Edited 2 November 2021 by PAPA LAZAROU

[st albans fox]

We should all be as honest as we can in this 

 

when vaccines came in there was a hope that they would eliminate the virus in those who had them. There was no real data on whether those jabbed would be able to pass the virus on or become infected at all. 

 

the truth (impacted by delta) has turned out to be poor on that side of the jab. But the reduction in hospitalisations in the vaccinated has been pretty much as good as was hoped. 
 

hence we are now able to carry on our lives in a way that we may not have thought possible six months ago. 

 

but there will always people who use the data to prove their argument, irrespective of relevance.