Coronavirus

[vinteuil]

Seems an entirely proper public health measure, to me

I agree. My instincts are libertarian, but in the current circs I wd favour compulsory vaccinations and then vaccination passports.

[teamsaint]

When somebody, anybody can show me that vaccine passports have a real public health benefit , ( and of course we know there will be serious issues with them in any case) , there might be at least ill be the top of a very, very slippery slope.

The parliamentary committee that looked at them produced this report.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/news/155788/no-justification-for-covid-passports-say-committee/

Divisive, discriminatory, dangerous.

[teamsaint]

I agree. My instincts are libertarian, but in the current circs I wd favour compulsory vaccinations and then vaccination passports.

Funnily enough, if pushed I might describe myself as I think you might describe yourself. Broadly liberal with a bit of a libertarian instinct. Probably a good old fashioned Liberal in fact. ( FF will be able to comment on this !!)

But I am certain that vaccine passports, and the digital ID that will most certainly follow will be a calamity for liberal values. And the risks that they bring are far too big to countenance. And why anybody of even vaguely liberal views ( and this is not meant as a personal comment Vinny) would entrust such a process to this government, of all governments, with Gove, Patel, Johnson, Raab etc at the helm is hard to imagine.

[french frank]

When somebody, anybody can show me that vaccine passports have a real public health benefit , ( and of course we know there will be serious issues with them in any case) , there might be at least ill be the top of a very, very slippery slope.

In uncharted waters, how do you prove the future, beyond all doubt?

The parliamentary committee that looked at them produced this report.

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/327/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/news/155788/no-justification-for-covid-passports-say-committee/

Divisive, discriminatory, dangerous.

It's down to options. Given the way people are already behaving, are you advocating, 'Let it rip'? Is that what you understand 'Living with it' means?

I'll join the revolution when there's no other way.

[teamsaint]

In uncharted waters, how do you prove the future, beyond all doubt?



It's down to options. Given the way people are already behaving, are you advocating, 'Let it rip'? Is that what you understand 'Living with it' means?

I'll join the revolution when there's no other way.

FF, I really don't understand your comment about proving the future "beyond doubt" . How else do you determine policy, strategy. The risks inherent in a massive digital IT scheme aren't a fantasy, they area all too clear. Systems in the wrong hands mean trouble. And the benefits ? We do cost/benefit analysis all the time ( well not during covid actually), and hope we get the right results. In the absence of a really compelling public health argument, and I have yet to see one,( check out the parliamentary committee report) inaction on this, and action elsewhere( on covid) is what is required.

On how people are behaving, no, I'm not advocating " let it rip". But if we are to restore much of the normality we took for granted , what seems quite a while ago now, we will have to take steps towards that at some point. And even some cautious SAGE member say that the moment is now, There will never be a completely "safe" moment as covid becomes endemic. And there is so much else to deal with.

[oddoneout]

Funnily enough, if pushed I might describe myself as I think you might describe yourself. Broadly liberal with a bit of a libertarian instinct. Probably a good old fashioned Liberal in fact. ( FF will be able to comment on this !!)

But I am certain that vaccine passports, and the digital ID that will most certainly follow will be a calamity for liberal values. And the risks that they bring are far too big to countenance. And why anybody of even vaguely liberal views ( and this is not meant as a personal comment Vinny) would entrust such a process to this government, of all governments, with Gove, Patel, Johnson, Raab etc at the helm is hard to imagine.

An extra bit of text seems to have appeared when making this reply...
I can see the rationale but I share your distrust of the motives and the wider implications of such a scheme*, and the thought that it will a) be bungled b) put loadsa money(which apparently the country doesn't have) into private (Tory chums) pockets, would add insult to injury as far as I'm concerned.
Various thoughts following on from the idea of passports and their perceived value, what is the level of effective protection in the double vaccinated population, is it the same as the trial results, is any testing being done? At what point does the protection drop off, will this be factored into the get out of jail free thinking re passports in terms of risk assessment of closed space gatherings? Updating/renewal of passports?
* Not helped by the fact that the proposed medical record data grab is still quietly set to go ahead from September - how many patients know/have been informed by their GP, how much public information has been put out - I have seen none anywhere.

[french frank]

FF, I really don't understand your comment about proving the future "beyond doubt" . How else do you determine policy, strategy.

You asked to be "shown" that such passports have a public health benefit. Even so, you wouldn't be able to prove post hoc that it would have been worse had there not been passports.

The risks inherent in a massive digital IT scheme aren't a fantasy, they are all too clear.

This is the point I have sympathy with, but it isn't a 'public health' issue which is your point that I was answering.

On how people are behaving, no, I'm not advocating " let it rip". But if we are to restore much of the normality we took for granted , what seems quite a while ago now, we will have to take steps towards that at some point. And even some cautious SAGE member say that the moment is now

.
Yes, now - with continuing precautions being taken. Like wearing masks. Look at the Euro 2020 crowds - the vast majority not wearing masks, to say nothing of the anti-lockdown protesters. Such people are potentially - literally - lethal, to other people.

There will never be a completely "safe" moment as covid becomes endemic. And there is so much else to deal with.

There is so much else to deal with, but covid becoming 'endemic' I took to mean 'with us always as 'flu is with us': we won't get rid of it. But we haven't reached the stage of it being like 'flu yet.

[antongould]

I agree. My instincts are libertarian, but in the current circs I wd favour compulsory vaccinations and then vaccination passports.

I’m with you vints, as I think is Cambois …….

[teamsaint]

You asked to be "shown" that such passports have a public health benefit. Even so, you wouldn't be able to prove post hoc that it would have been worse had there not been passports.



This is the point I have sympathy with, but it isn't a 'public health' issue which is your point that I was answering.

.
Yes, now - with continuing precautions being taken. Like wearing masks. Look at the Euro 2020 crowds - the vast majority not wearing masks, to say nothing of the anti-lockdown protesters. Such people are potentially - literally - lethal, to other people.



There is so much else to deal with, but covid becoming 'endemic' I took to mean 'with us always as 'flu is with us': we won't get rid of it. But we haven't reached the stage of it being like 'flu yet.

Re your last point......Flu and pneumonia deaths have been very significantly higher than covid deaths since at least March, and were 10 times higher in June, according to the ONS.

And age standardised mortality for the whole of 2021 is broadly the same as many recent years.

These are important stats, IMO.

[teamsaint]

I’m with you vints, as I think is Cambois …….

An important argument against, for me , is the inevitable lack of long term studies .

We are told the vaccines are safe and effective. Every effort has been made to distribute them. I think that is as much as we should do.

just IMO of course, AG.

[Simon B]

The ONS prevalence estimate is currently somewhere around 1% with active infection.

Spector et al recently estimate that new daily UK infections are in the ratio 2:1:1 for unvaccinated:1_x_vaccinated:2_x_vaccinated. This is broadly in accord with similar snippets of info from PHE, HMG etc, though they do seem to like to drip feed it.

Meanwhile, the official figures indicate that vaccination status is currently in the ratio 12:18:70

Work this through and what it means is, if you pick members of the population at random:

4.2% of unvaccinated are infected
1.4% of 1_x_vaccinated are infected
0.36% of 2_x_vaccinated are infected

Much of this effect must be down to demographics and behaviour - none of the vaccines are that effective in themselves. However, that's besides the point. Vaccination status is currently an excellent predictor of probability of being infected.

What this means is that if you're surrounded by 10 nearest neighbours in a concert hall/stadium/whatever and:

They are all demonstrably 2_x_vaccinated, the probability that none of them is currently infected is (1-0.0036)^10 = 97%.
If no attempt is made to select via vaccine status, this becomes (1-0.01)^10 = 90%.
If nobody is vaccinated (perhaps an approximation to being amongst a group of young people right now) this becomes (1-0.042)^10 = 65%.

So insisting on 2_x_vaccinated yields a roughly 3-fold risk reduction (1-.9)/(1-.97) for exposure from 10 nearest neighbours compared with allowing all-comers.

Do the same thing for 30 nearest neighbours and you get 90%, 74%, 28%.

Objectively, ignoring any broader issues, IMO this makes an unarguable case in favour of selecting on the basis of vaccine status (or recent negative test) once you've decided to abandon social distancing.

This will presumably all change if/when a sufficiently large number of people are vaccinated, or the behaviour of the currently vaccinated becomes much less cautious. Maybe that's the govt gamble? Try to cajole people into getting vaccinated with the threat of passports etc in the hope/understanding that eventually they will become irrelevant anyway.

I share unease about the broader issues around what the state is up to with Digital ID and the rest of it. However, that horse has already bolted IMO considering how much data is harvested, distributed and utilised in myriad ways by non-state bodies right now, with much of this activity hidden from scrutiny.

[vinteuil]

I share unease about the broader issues around what the state is up to with Digital ID and the rest of it. However, that horse has already bolted IMO considering how much data is harvested, distributed and utilised in myriad ways by non-state bodies right now, with much of this activity hidden from scrutiny.

... yes, a very sane take on how things are, I think

.

[french frank]

I share unease about the broader issues around what the state is up to with Digital ID and the rest of it. However, that horse has already bolted IMO considering how much data is harvested, distributed and utilised in myriad ways by non-state bodies right now, with much of this activity hidden from scrutiny.

I thought of adding that point. For the vast majority that threat is considerably more likely to inflict harm on them personally. Though I retain a residual liberal/libertarian concern about what a rogue government is doing.

[teamsaint]

I thought of adding that point. For the vast majority that threat is considerably more likely to inflict harm on them personally. Though I retain a residual liberal/libertarian concern about what a rogue government is doing.

The point about the widespread use or misuse of our data is often mentioned. And yes, there is a lot of it about, and with increasing use of AI , it is going to be an ever present issue.
I do think the Digital ID Framework represents a step change though, with a centralisation of huge range data specifically in government hands, and going a long way beyond what many people would regard as sensible for ID purposes. For the record, I was never militantly against a basic digital ID card , with name, DOB, NI no, place of birth and even photo ID. It could, with the right safeguards be widely useful.
However, the DIF also raises questions of how our ID might be used, in situations where the individual might very well be put at a serious disadvantage with larger ,more powerful bodies.

With “ the horse has bolted “ question, I thought of anti trust legislation in the US as a comparison, which has been a long and not always successful struggle in the face of powerful forces, but one worth fighting in any case.

[Bryn]

As linked to by member Barrett on FB:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/27/british-government-covid-strategy-virus-incompetence-ignorance-pandemic