Vaccine passport

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 smollett 07 Feb 2021

Vaccine passport is discriminatory apparently. Can anyone explain why this is? I genuinely don't understand how. I think this will be another govt u turn in a few months and we will follow more progressive countries down this route.

14
 timjones 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

> Vaccine passport is discriminatory apparently. Can anyone explain why this is? I genuinely don't understand how. I think this will be another govt u turn in a few months and we will follow more progressive countries down this route.

Maybe it is better to issue certificates to those that need or desire them rather than a passport to everyone whether they need it or not?

OP smollett 07 Feb 2021
In reply to timjones:

Ok, yes I would support this also but dont see how this differs from a passport. Main concern being how do you travel to a country that requires proof of vaccination for entry. Providing there is something in place which can allow freedom of movement then that's fine. I also think if some UK restaurants, gyms etc. request it then that should be up to them to impose.

2
In reply to smollett:

It quite obviously discriminates against those who haven't been offered a jab yet

1
 earlsdonwhu 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

Apparently, the GPs will have a record so they could issue a ' certificate'. Obviously, GPs haveve got plenty of time to administer this! 

 Mr Lopez 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

It certainly discriminates against healthy 18 to 49 year old people who may not be offered a vaccine for a long time to come.

It would mean the lowest at-risk section of the population would be the ones made to suffer restrictions and sacrifices the longest while they are lifted for everyone else

Post edited at 18:54
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> It quite obviously discriminates against those who haven't been offered a jab yet

Which is age discrimination because the vaccination roll out is based on age.  Pensioners would be able to go on holiday over summer and younger people who waited longer so pensioners could go first would not.

But the main argument is that a vaccine passport only makes sense if having one proves you are very unlikely to transmit Covid to others.   A document saying you have had a first dose of a Covid jab doesn't prove that yet.  The studies show it means you are much less likely to have serious disease yourself.  It is still an open question how likely you are to transmit it.

1
 Steve Wetton 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

It's obviously discriminatory against all sorts of people - but discrimination is a fact of life - we do it all the time - the question is - is it fair/legal?

I'd have thought that in these one-off difficult times, for a period of maybe 6 months/a year, some kind of vaccine passport, agreed with key trading/travel partners, would help get the economy moving, and help us start to tackle the huge Covid debt that we have accrued. The drivers seem to be those countries whose economies are massively dependent on tourism, particularly Greece, but Spain and France cant be far behind in terms of its importance to them. 

It would be nice to see this inept government look ahead to the summer and address the question - how can we make travel safe, both to and from the UK? I'd have thought that through a combination of testing, quarantining (before or after travel) and vaccine passports, a system could be developed that would minimise any unfair discrimination.

3
 wintertree 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

It all depends if they can box up the South African variant both at home and in destinations, and how the data on vaccine efficiency against transmission of, and illness cased by that variant continues to shape up.

I think it'll be hard for countries without our sequencing capability (i.e. most of them) to box up the SA variant without going for a zero-covid strategy, and if they go for a zero-covid strategy they are unlikely to allow mass movement with the UK unless we do likewise, with quarantine reserved for returning nationals only - not British tourists. 

If the variant ends up under widespread community transmission all bets are off.  It's hard to see how it won't in a lot of the world - unless another worse variant crowds it out.

In reply to WVRox:

> It would be nice to see this inept government look ahead to the summer and address the question - how can we make travel safe, both to and from the UK? 

I think the question is more "can we make travel to and from the UK safe in 2021? ".  It's a bit too early to call that with the SA variant IMO...

Post edited at 19:09
2
 timjones 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

> Ok, yes I would support this also but dont see how this differs from a passport. Main concern being how do you travel to a country that requires proof of vaccination for entry. Providing there is something in place which can allow freedom of movement then that's fine. I also think if some UK restaurants, gyms etc. request it then that should be up to them to impose.

You travel to a country that requires proof of vaccination by paying for a vaccination certificate in the same way that pay for a medical certificate to enter some sporting events.

Restaurants and gyms could impose such a requirement but I would be inclined to go elsehwere if they made that choice and I didn't already have the required proof.

 Andrew Lodge 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

Surely unless they are as secure as a conventional passport with all the associated costs of that they would be worthless anyway.

As soon as they were set up you would be able to buy them on ebay for £5.

 Cobra_Head 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> It quite obviously discriminates against those who haven't been offered a jab yet


But if you can't go on your holiday, you'd be happy with that?

I mentioned this months ago and got shot down in flames, mostly, but if a country needs documentation, then I'm going to be pretty pissed off if I can't get it and I've had my jab.

I'd be happy not to go if I haven't been jabbed. I might be sad, but I could understand it.

1
 Cobra_Head 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> It would mean the lowest at-risk section of the population would be the ones made to suffer restrictions and sacrifices the longest while they are lifted for everyone else

So what? There are only a certain number of people who can travel on the bus for free, and get free telly licenses.

You HAVE to be a certain age before you can drive!!

13
 Mr Lopez 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Andrew Lodge:

> Surely unless they are as secure as a conventional passport with all the associated costs of that they would be worthless anyway.

> As soon as they were set up you would be able to buy them on ebay for £5.

When my sister got her PCR result in order to be able to travel to Spain i remarked how it would be a matter of minutes to change name and dates in photoshop. She snatched it off my hands while i was still forming a business plan in my head and had chance to present it though...

 summo 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

Just make it digital, tied to a NI number. You identify yourself, any restaurant, airline, concert venue could check on a database if you were vaccinated. 

2
In reply to smollett:

> Vaccine passport is discriminatory apparently. Can anyone explain why this is? I genuinely don't understand how. I think this will be another govt u turn in a few months and we will follow more progressive countries down this route.

The question of interest to a country imposing border controls is 'is this person going to infect our citizens with Covid?'

A few years ago vaccination status was the best you could do as a border control.  But for Covid in 2021 we have testing.  Walking up to immigration with a very recent test result saying you do not have Covid is a far more powerful proof you aren't going to infect people than a document saying you've had a jab.   Right now we don't know that having a jab is a strong assurance you can't transmit the virus (as opposed to getting serious disease yourself).

So, when different countries are using different vaccines on different schedules why would they get involved with vaccine passports instead of just saying 'recent negative test'.

Post edited at 19:47
1
In reply to Cobra_Head:

No, of course I wouldn't be happy with that. But as one of the last in the queue I think I'm going to be part of an extremely pissed off majority when the people who we've gone to extreme lengths to protect for the last year get to swan off to f***ing Greece and rub it in our faces, spending their pensions that we'll never have.

Post edited at 19:49
9
 Mr Lopez 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Ignoring your false equivalence which would be pointless arguing with, there's an issue with practicality and compliance with whatever restrictions there may be.

Try telling some 23 year old kids that in order to protect the over-65, they are not allowed to go to the pub, gym or cinema. Meeting friends, go to parties, go on holiday, or go to a concert. All the while they are watching the over-65's going to the pub, gym and cinema. Meeting friends, going to parties, going on holiday, and going to concerts.

Chances are at the first signs of a vaccine passport large swathes of the population will just go "Ah, f*ck this shit" and go about life without any care for Covid. The people that fall out of the 65% vaccine efficacy rate will be the ones footing the bill unfortunately

1
 walts4 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh

> So, when different countries are using different vaccines on different schedules why would they get involved with vaccine passports instead of just saying 'recent negative test'.

Already it seems. Both Georgia & Nepal have said recently that they are opening up to tourism in the near future & reopening flights to facilitate this on the strength of the tourists holding a vaccine certificate.

 msjhes2 07 Feb 2021

In reply to

The NHS app already if you have it on your phone already tells you your vaccination status.

 Maggot 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Try telling some 23 year old kids that in order to protect the over-65, they are not allowed to go to the pub, gym or cinema

Ah diddums, the little treasures can't go to the pub. I'm almost 61 and is gagging to go down the pub, but I can't because there's a global shitfest going on.

And I bet you a night in the pub there are more than plenty fitter >65s than pasty faced keyboard pressing yoofs.

Post edited at 21:08
27
 MG 07 Feb 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It tells them if you could acquire and spread covid whilst abroad. A foreigner ill would be very inconvenient for everyone,  and would likely spread the disease. A negative test doesn't help here. 

Post edited at 21:27
 climbingpixie 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Maggot:

> Ah diddums, the little treasures can't go to the pub. I'm almost 61 and is gagging to go down the pub, but I can't because there's a global shitfest going on.

Oh piss off. There's obviously a massive difference between none of us being able to go to the pub and only those who've been vaccinated (effectively ruling out the vast majority of the <50s) being able to go to the pub. Restrictions are much more acceptable when we're all in it together - it would feel manifestly unfair for them to continue applying to those who are at least risk of the virus and who don't have access to the vaccine because of the prioritisation of at risk groups.

5
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Walking up to immigration with a very recent test result saying you do not have Covid is a far more powerful proof you aren't going to infect people

Really? What's the false negative rate...?

In reply to MG:

> It tells them if you could acquire and spread covid whilst abroad. A foreigner ill would be very inconvenient for everyone,  and would likely spread the disease. A negative test doesn't help here. 

I could see a tenuous reason for the UK demanding citizens leaving the country should have a vaccine certificate.  But for foreigners coming in for a couple of weeks holiday it seems like a negative test is far better especially for short term holiday travel.   The vaccines are qualified based on preventing disease and there's no evidence that they are as effective at preventing transmission. 

If countries were to start doing the vaccine passport thing then you would need to allow business travelers and people involved in transport to jump the age and clinical need based queue for vaccination.

It's also a bit of an assumption to think other countries are going to accept a UK vaccine passport.  They may well only recognise passports which they deem equivalent to their own vaccine protocol.

In reply to captain paranoia:

> Really? What's the false negative rate...?

I didn't say a PCR test from an accredited lab was perfect, I said it was better than a vaccine passport when the vaccines are not even claimed to be effective at stopping transmission.

What's the chance that someone who has had one dose of AZ vaccine which is 60 something percent effective at preventing disease is not able to transmit Covid?

 Martin Hore 07 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

I think if a vaccine passport enabled desirable opportunities (eg travel abroad) then we would quite soon see a market for private paid-for vaccination - which most certainly would be discriminatory. That hasn't happened yet because the main advantage to the person vaccinated of having the vaccine at present is the reduced risk of death or serious illness, and that advantage largely appeals to those who are in the priority groups to receive the vaccine free anyway.

So I think, on balance, it's best if all restrictions continue to apply to everyone, vaccinated or not, even if that means that those of us in the priority groups have, like everyone else, to wait a little longer for our freedom to travel to be restored. 

Martin

 spenser 07 Feb 2021
In reply to climbingpixie:

People on gold plated final salary pensions and nice houses (not all pensioners but enough of a stereotype to get people riled up) being free to go about their normal lives while young people who have abided by the restrictions throughout to help protect said pensioners continue to have their freedom significantly restricted while living in houseshares and working form home.

Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen to me, if the government are stupid enough to go down this road I hope that young people stand up for themselves.

4
 Martin Hore 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> No, of course I wouldn't be happy with that. But as one of the last in the queue I think I'm going to be part of an extremely pissed off majority when the people who we've gone to extreme lengths to protect for the last year get to swan off to f***ing Greece and rub it in our faces, spending their pensions that we'll never have.

As per my last post on this topic, I completely agree with everything you say - except the last 7 words! Most pensioners of my generation paid for our pensions throughout our working lives. Yes, we had no option about it, but it still represented a substantial bite out of our salaries - both the amount we actually paid ourselves, and the amount our employers "paid" by offering lower salaries to compensate for their apparent generosity.

I've great sympathy for young people today who struggle to make ends meet, and appreciate you may be in this category. But for the many young people today who enjoy a lifestyle considerably more affluent than their equivalents did 40 - 50 years ago I'm not sure what's preventing them contributing more to their pension.

Martin

14
OP smollett 07 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Guess it depends on your definition of discrimination. In my mind discrimination requires prejudice rather than logical reasons for actions. For example I wouldnt class someone prosecuted for driving without a licence discriminated against.

I accept that I will be amongst the last to be vaccinated but if safe to do so I wouldnt expect everyone to remain isolated until I'm jabbed. Of course if still possible to transmit after vaccination it changes things.

3
 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Ignoring your false equivalence which would be pointless arguing with, there's an issue with practicality and compliance with whatever restrictions there may be.

All of which are easily overcome, or simply refused.

> Chances are at the first signs of a vaccine passport large swathes of the population will just go "Ah, f*ck this shit" and go about life without any care for Covid. The people that fall out of the 65% vaccine efficacy rate will be the ones footing the bill unfortunately


The whole point is it's not about going to the pub, gym or cinema, it's about other countries, not allowing you in unless you've been vaccinated.

But there again, businesses have the right to serve or not serve who they want, vaccine-wise, at least and at present. Unless of course there isn't a change in the law.

In reply to smollett:

> Guess it depends on your definition of discrimination. 

That's the thing though, it doesn't.

"How come he's allowed?"

"He has a vaccine passport"

"How do I get one of those?"

"Be old"

"Is age a protected characteristic defined in the equality act 2010?"

"Sure is"

Discrimination then innit.

1
 wbo2 08 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

So basically no travel and a mild lockdown  till 2022 should keep everyone happy, or at least equivalently unhappy.  

Alyson30 08 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

> Vaccine passport is discriminatory apparently. Can anyone explain why this is?

 

It isn’t. 
It’s just a better soundbite than telling the truth, which is that we don’t really know how much this will reduce transmission, how effective it’s really going to be against new variants, etc etc.

Post edited at 11:27
2
 elsewhere 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> That's the thing though, it doesn't.

> "How come he's allowed?"

> "He has a vaccine passport"

> "How do I get one of those?"

Be vulnerable.

> "Is being vulnerable a protected characteristic defined in the equality act 2010?"

I don't know but I doubt not being vulnerable to a virus is.

1
Alyson30 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

> As per my last post on this topic, I completely agree with everything you say - except the last 7 words! Most pensioners of my generation paid for our pensions throughout our working lives.

 

You did not. Your state pension are paid with today’s tax revenue + borrowing. The taxes you have paid have already been spent.

6
 The New NickB 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

They are contributing more to their pensions and getting less for it. You perhaps don’t fully appreciate the squeeze on pension over the last 15 years. I’m lucky mine is better than most, but I’m on my third scheme in 18 years with the same employer, each less generous than the last. I’m contributing more and getting less. I’m mid 40s, it’s considerably worse for other nearer the start of their careers.

1
 fred99 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> It quite obviously discriminates against those who haven't been offered a jab yet

Correction - It will (later on) discriminate against those who have decided that everyone else can have the jab, so that they can be protected by default.

Unfortunately, if too many people refuse, then they will eventually all go down with the virus, and they will give those of us with the jab some periods of illness that we shouldn't have been at risk of.

5
 The New NickB 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

We should all be vaccinated by late summer. All being well, we will have more freedom before then, but that should be based on control of the virus, not who is vaccinated and who isn’t at least until everyone is given the opportunity to be vaccinated.

In terms of international travel, we have limited control of what other countries decide to do.

 fred99 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> It certainly discriminates against healthy 18 to 49 year old people who may not be offered a vaccine for a long time to come.

But should these people be travelling across the world in the first place, when they are vulnerable to, and possibly carrying the virus ?

2
 fred99 08 Feb 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The question of interest to a country imposing border controls is 'is this person going to infect our citizens with Covid?'

> A few years ago vaccination status was the best you could do as a border control.  But for Covid in 2021 we have testing.  Walking up to immigration with a very recent test result saying you do not have Covid is a far more powerful proof you aren't going to infect people than a document saying you've had a jab.   Right now we don't know that having a jab is a strong assurance you can't transmit the virus (as opposed to getting serious disease yourself).

> So, when different countries are using different vaccines on different schedules why would they get involved with vaccine passports instead of just saying 'recent negative test'.

I would imagine that, for the time being at least, BOTH would be required.

Another country not only doesn't want a foreigner infecting their population, they also don't want a foreigner occupying one of their hospital/ICU beds.

 fred99 08 Feb 2021
In reply to spenser:

> People on gold plated final salary pensions and nice houses (not all pensioners but enough of a stereotype to get people riled up) being free to go about their normal lives...

I become a pensioner next December. Don't have a "gold plated final salary pension", and my house is a 2-up 2-down terraced house - that makes me far more representative of pensioners than the ones you are talking about.

Furthermore, any personal pensions that I HAVE PAID INTO all these years are now showing rather low rates of payment in comparison with a couple of years ago - because of the financial mess the world is in.

You have time for your pension to mature into a nice little nest egg, but those of us who are about to retire will have to work longer because we just can't afford to retire right now. Those who have retired just before this chaos are in a worse state - they worked out that they were financially OK, taking into account their invested pensions, but rates have plummeted, so their calculations are screwed (as are some of them).

3
 fred99 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Alyson30:

> You did not. Your state pension are paid with today’s tax revenue + borrowing. The taxes you have paid have already been spent.

But his taxes (and mine) were spent on your education !!

3
Blanche DuBois 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

> Most pensioners of my generation paid for our pensions throughout our working lives.

Not true.  You paid for the (much smaller and less long lived) group of pensioners alive at that time.  The current working population is paying for your pension.

> I'm not sure what's preventing them contributing more to their pension.

A necessity to eat and pay for rent?  The knowledge that any extra money they pay into the system will be spaffed up the wall by the current crop of selfish pensioners?

> Martin

Why do you (and others) insist on signing off like that?  It's a forum post not a letter.

1
 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Why do you (and others) insist on signing off like that?  It's a forum post not a letter.

Why are you bothered?

2
 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> That's the thing though, it doesn't.

> "How come he's allowed?"

> "He has a vaccine passport"

> "How do I get one of those?"

 "Get vaccinated"

> "But I don't want to!"

> Discrimination then innit.

Nope

Post edited at 17:42
3
Alyson30 08 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

> But his taxes (and mine) were spent on your education !!

They were not.

Post edited at 17:45
1
In reply to Cobra_Head:

>  "Get vaccinated"

Ok. You won't mind if I have yours then? Cool. You can wait until July. And not get a 'vaccine passport'. Deal.

Removed User 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> That's the thing though, it doesn't.

> "How come he's allowed?"

> "He has a vaccine passport"

> "How do I get one of those?"

> "Be old"

> "Is age a protected characteristic defined in the equality act 2010?"

> "Sure is"

> Discrimination then innit.

Positive discrimination.

If someone else is fortunate enough to be in a position to travel abroad without harming themselves or others, remind me why they should be stopped from travelling?

In reply to Removed User:

> Positive discrimination.

> If someone else is fortunate enough to be in a position to travel abroad without harming themselves or others, remind me why they should be stopped from travelling?

They're not 'fortunate'. It's not the hand of fate choosing how to deal out vaccinations.

1
 mondite 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> If someone else is fortunate enough to be in a position to travel abroad without harming themselves or others, remind me why they should be stopped from travelling?

Because they arent fortunate they are privileged by being selected first for protection due to them being most at risk.

You would have to be insane to turn around and give those people greater freedoms than those who are lower risk. Otherwise people will start saying f*ck the best outcome for society as a whole I want the best outcome for me.

Removed User 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> They're not 'fortunate'. It's not the hand of fate choosing how to deal out vaccinations.

They're fortunate in the sense that they have been given protection from Covid while others have yet to receive it.

..but that wasn't the main point of my post.

Removed User 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mondite:

> Because they arent fortunate they are privileged by being selected first for protection due to them being most at risk.

> You would have to be insane to turn around and give those people greater freedoms than those who are lower risk. Otherwise people will start saying f*ck the best outcome for society as a whole I want the best outcome for me.

So everyone should be prevented from travelling until everyone is vaccinated, yes?

Don't you think the people saying "f*ck it" are being selfish? 

In reply to Removed User:

I mean, another way of looking at it (IMPORTANT: not my view, but how a lot of people will naively see it) is that they're 'fortunate' that society was willing put life on hold for a year to keep them alive. And to ask half of society, the half that for whatever misguided reason think they would have just had 'bad flu', to put life on hold for another year while the 'fortunate' go off on their hols might cause a bit of a strain on inter-generational relations.

To look at it yet another way, what if 'The Rich' were the first to get vaccinated and were allowed to do what they wanted as a result? Streets awash with boiling piss and riots, obviously.
What if you let [choose a section of society] have the vaccine first and to what they want as a result? [Everyone else] up in arms, quite rightly.

It just doesn't work. We're just rehashing an old thread here now, but you have to let everyone out at the same time under the same terms or it will not end well.

1
 Martin Hore 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Alyson30:

> You did not. Your state pension are paid with today’s tax revenue + borrowing. The taxes you have paid have already been spent.

You missed the context I fear. I was responding to an earlier post which referred to pensioners holidaying in Greece. Very few, if any, pensioners are holidaying in Greece if the state pension is their main income. I was referring to my occupational pension which was paid partly by myself and partly by my employer as part of my remuneration package - the salary being reduced to compensate.

Martin

 Martin Hore 08 Feb 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> They are contributing more to their pensions and getting less for it. You perhaps don’t fully appreciate the squeeze on pension over the last 15 years. I’m lucky mine is better than most, but I’m on my third scheme in 18 years with the same employer, each less generous than the last. I’m contributing more and getting less. I’m mid 40s, it’s considerably worse for other nearer the start of their careers.

I appreciate that things have changed substantially. But I'm not sure todays younger people are actually contributing more for less. It will appear so to them, because they are having to fund more (or all) of the contributions out of their salaries. My employer "paid" substantial amounts towards my pension but only as part of my overall remuneration package. The salary was lower to compensate.

Martin 

7
 Martin Hore 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Why do you (and others) insist on signing off like that?  It's a forum post not a letter.

Dear Blanche

I'll continue to sign off politely, do my best to give careful consideration to what I write, refrain from offensive or insulting language, and post under my real name. I'm not sure why anyone would be offended by that, even if they choose to do differently themselves. Why should the fact that it's a forum post license less civil behaviour?

Martin

1
 AJM 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

Given how much the employer contribution to a DB scheme are likely to cost these days, it seems vanishingly unlikely that the staff are getting a compensatory pay rise! My experience of DB schemes closing is that there's no change to up front pay and an amount of employer contribution to a DC scheme that's significantly less than it would have been for DB. After all, from their perspective that's the point!

In reply to Martin Hore:

> I appreciate that things have changed substantially. But I'm not sure todays younger people are actually contributing more for less. It will appear so to them, because they are having to fund more (or all) of the contributions out of their salaries. My employer "paid" substantial amounts towards my pension but only as part of my overall remuneration package. The salary was lower to compensate.

> Martin

I'm afraid I can confirm that they are.

I'm in the in-between generation. I have a few years in a final salary scheme, but my working life spans the period when that had the cost gradually transferred to staff, then benefits eroded, then closed to new entrants, then taken away. I'm still waiting for the payrise. All the while watching my retirement age creep steadily up. And then there's home ownership...

I'll be ok but a few years younger and I'd have a lot to moan about.

 mondite 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Removed User:

> So everyone should be prevented from travelling until everyone is vaccinated, yes?

At least until enough are vaccinated that herd immunity can be considered good enough that infection risks are low.

> Don't you think the people saying "f*ck it" are being selfish? 

Nope.  They are currently accepting that they will not be offered vaccination from covid for the foreseeable future in order that those who are in a higher risk group can be treated first and also massive restrictions on what they can do again to primarily protect those at higher risk. Pretty much the exact opposite of being selfish. They will also, in the most part, be the ones paying back the massive debts incurred for this.

If you then make the decision to put them actively at a disadvantage to those in the higher risk groups I think it would be completely reasonable for them to get rather upset.

2
 The New NickB 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

> I appreciate that things have changed substantially. But I'm not sure todays younger people are actually contributing more for less. It will appear so to them, because they are having to fund more (or all) of the contributions out of their salaries. My employer "paid" substantial amounts towards my pension but only as part of my overall remuneration package. The salary was lower to compensate.

> Martin 

Can you support this with anything. I’m my sector,  pay is around 20% lower in real terms than it was a decade ago. 

 Martin Hore 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Not true.  You paid for the (much smaller and less long lived) group of pensioners alive at that time.  The current working population is paying for your pension.

> A necessity to eat and pay for rent?  The knowledge that any extra money they pay into the system will be spaffed up the wall by the current crop of selfish pensioners?

I think you've missed my point as did Alyson. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about my main occupational pension, not the state pension. The current working population is not contributing to my main pension. Yes, I do receive the state pension as well, as will you unless today's younger generation vote for a party that abolishes it, but I don't think that alone would pay for a lifestyle anyone could call "selfish". 

I appreciate that housing costs are a real problem for young people today, and I agree it's a disgrace that any person, young or old, who is prepared to work hard in today's Britain should be left on the poverty line. But I'm not convinced that pensioners like myself who have always voted left of centre and, in my case campaigned hard for Remain, largely to preserve opportunities for future generations, should be categorised as you do in your post.

Martin

3
 RobAJones 08 Feb 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

From a teachers perspective a decade ago I was paying just over 20% of my "package" into a pension (7% me 14% employers)  Now I would be paying in over 34%, for a significantly worse pension. My take home pay would be pretty much the same so I guess about 20% less in real terms. Even so, I bet in 20 years time people will still be complaining about teachers pensions, but they won't have been putting over 30% of their income into a pension.

Post edited at 19:25
 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Ok. You won't mind if I have yours then? Cool. You can wait until July. And not get a 'vaccine passport'. Deal.


You've got more years left to climb than me, probably. I'll swap you 5 years for my jab, if you like?

Like I said, it's tough tits if you don't like it, if Spain or Greece decide you need confirmation of being jabbed then what are you going to do, sue them?

1
 Martin Hore 08 Feb 2021
In reply to The New NickB:

> Can you support this with anything. I’m my sector,  pay is around 20% lower in real terms than it was a decade ago. 

I don't have any statistics to support a comparison between salaries in my youth and salaries for comparable levels of responsibility today. I do have anecdotal, but I think generally accepted, evidence of how professional salaries in my youth in occupations with strong  pension schemes, were less, often considerably less, than salaries paid for similar responsibilities in the same era by companies who didn't contribute to generous pensions. 

I'm not sure we live in an overall less well paid country today. But it's certainly true that we live in a country where the differentials between the better and worse off have grown markedly. Are the top paid people in your sector also paid 20% less than a decade ago?

Martin

 mondite 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

> I do have anecdotal, but I think generally accepted, evidence of how professional salaries in my youth in occupations with strong  pension schemes, were less, often considerably less, than salaries paid for similar responsibilities in the same era by companies who didn't contribute to generous pensions. 

You do realise that doesnt support your case at all?

In reply to Cobra_Head:

> You've got more years left to climb than me, probably. I'll swap you 5 years for my jab, if you like?

You've had more years to climb than me, probably. Not seeing your logic there.

1
 RobAJones 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

> I don't have any statistics to support a comparison between salaries in my youth and salaries for comparable levels of responsibility today.

I can, for a teacher in their third year.

Me 1994 pay 13,000 pa,  pension contribution  £220 per month, mortgage £250 (£40,000)

Now 2020 pay 28,000, pension contribution £840 , mortgage £720 (house now worth 160,000) 

A couple of other observations  I didn't have a student loan to pay off, then there were 52 other applicants for the job, today they would be lucky to get more than 1.

 RobAJones 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mondite:

> You do realise that doesnt support your case at all?

Not sure I follow. If I was still an Assistant Head on say £50,000 (less than 10 years ago?). I would now  be paying £5,000 into  pension but the MAT would be paying in an additional £12,000. Wouldn't I need have a salary of £62,000 somewhere else, if there was no pension scheme? (I know technically this isn't possible, but you see my point?)

 mondite 08 Feb 2021
In reply to RobAJones:

> Not sure I follow.

Because he wasnt doing any sort of useful comparison at all. If you are comparing the quality of schemes now as opposed to then you need to compare now and then and not then and then.

Many companies offered DB in the past but now its pretty much all DC for new entrants with a few exceptions.

 RobAJones 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mondite:

So my other post was more relevant?

I realise that a DB schemes are now very  rare, but if someone was putting over a third of their income into a DC scheme they could expect a reasonable income after 30/40 years? 

In reply to RobAJones:

> So my other post was more relevant?

> I realise that a DB schemes are now very  rare, but if someone was putting over a third of their income into a DC scheme they could expect a reasonable income after 30/40 years? 

You could if you lived through one of the most prosperous and sustained periods of consistent and exceptional growth in history, like the previous generations did. If interest rates and market returns stick at 0.1% and cock-all respectively, probably not.

 ianstevens 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

> As per my last post on this topic, I completely agree with everything you say - except the last 7 words! Most pensioners of my generation paid for our pensions throughout our working lives. Yes, we had no option about it, but it still represented a substantial bite out of our salaries - both the amount we actually paid ourselves, and the amount our employers "paid" by offering lower salaries to compensate for their apparent generosity.

> I've great sympathy for young people today who struggle to make ends meet, and appreciate you may be in this category. But for the many young people today who enjoy a lifestyle considerably more affluent than their equivalents did 40 - 50 years ago I'm not sure what's preventing them contributing more to their pension.

> Martin

Perhaps it’s the fact that houses are now about 10x annual salary not 2-3x annual salary?

 The New NickB 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

It looks like you probably have a Local Government Pension and were paid on one of the Local Government pay scales.

Snap. This is the sector I am talking about. I’m lucky to still have DB pension, but it is significantly less generous than the one you will have benefited from, I’m paying more for it and I won’t be able to access it as soon as you could have.

In terms of pay, 10 years of below inflation pay rises, usually zero, had a huge real terms cost at the same time as those pension “reforms”. That doesn’t even take in to account serious thinning out of management and pushing responsibility down the organisation.

I’m moderately senior, so earn a decent amount by most standards, however I have more responsibility than colleagues that retired a decade ago, a grade higher.

I seen jobs advertised know that 15-20 years ago, would be two grades higher.

 RobAJones 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> You could if you lived through one of the most prosperous and sustained periods of consistent and exceptional growth in history, like the previous generations did.

Can the previous generation argue that they contributed to this?

> If interest rates and market returns stick at 0.1% and cock-all respectively, probably not.

It will be no where near as good, especially if life expectancy increases, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't "reasonable"  I'm worried this belief is leading people (even teachers) to currently opt out of or pay a minimal amount into their pension. If you could accurately predict thirty years into the future you wouldn't need to work?

 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> You've had more years to climb than me, probably. Not seeing your logic there.


I thought it might be hard for you, but never mind. Like I said it matters not what you or I think, if countries start wanting certificates then your choice is limited. Hopefully it wont be a needed, but who knows, so many mutations, we might be Ground-Hog daying for years.

1
In reply to Cobra_Head:

If countries start wanting it then the priority argument changes, because you then have to listen to the people who need to travel for legitimate reasons. And then you end up jabbing people who travel for work before people who are possibly more in need, and then it looks like you're vaccinating the jet set first, and then the daily mail and the guardian start competing to be the most outraged. But it's ok because you're old enough to go to Greece.

 Martin Hore 08 Feb 2021
In reply to mondite:

> You do realise that doesnt support your case at all?

I mustn't have argued my case very clearly. I'm really only claiming that the occupational pension I now enjoy was paid for entirely by myself. It's not subsidised now by the current younger generation, nor was it subsidised then by my employer. Yes, my employer paid a considerable contribution, but that was balanced by a lower salary than the salaries at that time offered for similar responsibilities by employers without generous pension schemes. 

I'm sorry now that I responded to an earlier post as I did because it's diverted this thread. However I objected when I read the author of that post say "I think I'm going to be part of an extremely pissed off majority when the people who we've gone to extreme lengths to protect for the last year get to swan off to f***ing Greece and rub it in our faces, spending their pensions that we'll never have.

I'm fortunate to have already received my first jab but I don't believe that should entitle me to jump the gun on foreign holidays. But I also reject the idea that somehow today's pensioners are scrounging off the younger generation, as I've explained in other posts.

When COVID is history, today's young people will still be suffering from the loss of opportunity represented by Brexit, an outcome which I and many other like-minded campaigners of my generation worked very hard, in vain, to prevent.

Martin

 Martin Hore 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> You could if you lived through one of the most prosperous and sustained periods of consistent and exceptional growth in history, like the previous generations did. If interest rates and market returns stick at 0.1% and cock-all respectively, probably not.

But surely it's interest rates / market returns less inflation that matter. Most investments today will return slightly better than inflation which is all that cautious investments - suitable for pensions - should expect. 

Martin

 Cobra_Head 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> If countries start wanting it then the priority argument changes, because you then have to listen to the people who need to travel for legitimate reasons. And then you end up jabbing people who travel for work before people who are possibly more in need, and then it looks like you're vaccinating the jet set first, and then the daily mail and the guardian start competing to be the most outraged. But it's ok because you're old enough to go to Greece.


You don't have to do any of that, you can simply carry on with what we doing and live with the consequences.

How do you know how old I am, you've been very presumptions there. Like I said earlier, no one care what you think, or me, if a country decides you need to be vaccinated, and to be able to prove it, then that's what you need to do. Why is this so hard?

2
 mondite 08 Feb 2021
In reply to Martin Hore:

>  Yes, my employer paid a considerable contribution, but that was balanced by a lower salary than the salaries at that time offered for similar responsibilities by employers without generous pension schemes. 

Well yes and no. The fact is such generous pension schemes really arent available nowadays.  Now we have the crap salaries and crap pensions.

Which does lead into the frustration of some younger people since they have seen the older generation benefit from an elevator and then remove that and even the ladder.

> I'm sorry now that I responded to an earlier post as I did because it's diverted this thread.

Ah but it wouldnt be online discussion without random diversions.

> But I also reject the idea that somehow today's pensioners are scrounging off the younger generation, as I've explained in other posts.

The fact is that the younger generations are seeing a drop in disposable income. After many years of the next generation being better off than the previous that seems to have ended unless something unexpected happens.

They are seeing property prices rocket out of reach and the only government "action" being to help keep those prices high by setting up schemes which ratchet up the cost. They are seeing massive student debts and the crap pensions. They also see the EU benefits vanish due to the idiots whining (I acknowledge you dont count yourself amongst these idiots).

Then on top of that there now seems to be some amongst the privileged generations who think they should have restrictions lifted on them simply because they have been prioritised for vaccination.

I am in the group inbetween and really cant blame them.

In reply to Martin Hore:

> But surely it's interest rates / market returns less inflation that matter. Most investments today will return slightly better than inflation which is all that cautious investments - suitable for pensions - should expect. 

> Martin

Yes. I didn't think I needed to point out that inflation is currently >> interest rates. When I was a kid you put money in them endowment things and got nearly twice as much back. Used to be that money in the bank better than held its value. Now you have to risk capital just to break even. As mondite says, it's the first generation in a long time that won't be better off (in monetary terms) than their parents.

Personally I'll take it because I think quality of life is actually a lot better (I've never had to go for a crap in a frozen bog at the end of the garden), but I get why people are pissed off that the escalator has ground to a halt.

Post edited at 06:35
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> You don't have to do any of that, you can simply carry on with what we doing and live with the consequences.

not if you've thought them through

> How do you know how old I am, you've been very presumptions there. 

You made the assumption first, I just went with it.

Post edited at 06:39
 spenser 09 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

The problem is that while the majority of pensioners, like yourself, may well not be on such schemes there is a perception among a good number of young people that most pensioners are (certainly my grandparents were).

The world is in a financial mess as a result of your generation's running of it coupled with my generation's disengagement and disillusionment with the system (largely resulting from watching a bunch of rich middle aged men cock it all up repeatedly).

Of course I have time for my pension to mature into a nice little nest egg, I'm just as vulnerable to to some other crisis in 20-30 years time though if I make the same poor choices they did. If people are screwed by a fall in the stock markets they evidently got greedy and didn't move their pension pot into lower risk funds as they got closer to retirement (which seems to be the commonly held wisdom on how risk should be managed in pensions).

 Martin Hore 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Yes. I didn't think I needed to point out that inflation is currently >> interest rates. When I was a kid you put money in them endowment things and got nearly twice as much back. Used to be that money in the bank better than held its value. Now you have to risk capital just to break even. As mondite says, it's the first generation in a long time that won't be better off (in monetary terms) than their parents.

> Personally I'll take it because I think quality of life is actually a lot better (I've never had to go for a crap in a frozen bog at the end of the garden), but I get why people are pissed off that the escalator has ground to a halt.

I think I'm now quite close to agreeing with you (and perhaps with others too). My generation (I'm just 70) did not in general have a better lifestyle in our youth than today's younger generation. And we did manage to make substantial contributions to our pensions, from which we benefit today, often because we were given no choice.   The main problem is that the significant economic growth throughout my lifetime, which has benefitted most of us, young or old, has slowed in the recent period. This has contributed to the intergenerational tensions evident in this thread. 

Martin

1
In reply to fred99:

> Another country not only doesn't want a foreigner infecting their population, they also don't want a foreigner occupying one of their hospital/ICU beds.

If your only going for a 7 or 14 day holiday and you aren't infected when you travel there's not much chance of catching it and it progressing far enough to need ICU while you are there.  

I can see a vaccination being required for people staying longer.

The main problem is the number of different vaccines, different vaccination schedules/policies, new strains emerging and the lack of evidence about how much vaccination reduces your ability to transmit the virus. 

Right now vaccination passport is being pushed by people who want to sell the computers to run it, by people who want to get some benefit from being vaccinated and by businesses who want tourism to start up again.  That's not a reason to do it if it doesn't give strong assurance about not transmitting the virus.

1
In reply to Martin Hore:

Yes, that's about the long & short of it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Also there's the inevitability that as long as we don't have some vaccine passport system there will be people crowing for it. Can say no over and over again but as soon as there's a yes it'll happen. We'll have data really soon on the effect on transmission, and nobody's betting against it.

The saviour is that most likely not long after it's implemented it'll be redundant. It's only a useful concept from when enough are vaccinated for it to be a discriminator until nearly everyone is vaccinated, which hopefully won't be long. Or until some mutation derails the idea. Or numerous other scenarios.

 fred99 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Alyson30:

> They were not.

So you haven't been educated ?

Who do think did pay for your education - the fairies ??

1
 fred99 09 Feb 2021
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If your only going for a 7 or 14 day holiday and you aren't infected when you travel there's not much chance of catching it and it progressing far enough to need ICU while you are there.  

Cobblers - my mates mother caught Covid after a routine visit to hospital (confirmed that was where she caught it), 3 days later she was dead.

> I can see a vaccination being required for people staying longer.

I can see the French (for example) insisting on a vaccination before letting people off the boat (or whatever other method of travel). The Republic of Ireland is already turning people from Northern Ireland back at the border.

> The main problem is the number of different vaccines, different vaccination schedules/policies, new strains emerging and the lack of evidence about how much vaccination reduces your ability to transmit the virus. 

> Right now vaccination passport is being pushed by people who want to sell the computers to run it, by people who want to get some benefit from being vaccinated and by businesses who want tourism to start up again.  That's not a reason to do it if it doesn't give strong assurance about not transmitting the virus.

What about "non tourist" businesses. I started back to work recently, on the first week back a contract shipped to Italy, last week another one shipped to Hungary - specialist machinery that requires specialists to install and commission, and for that matter deal with any complicated maintenance or upgrades. (The sort of business that we in Britain are now hoping to expand due to any mass production industries leaving us for the cheap labour countries).

 I asked the Service Manager as to what our Service Engineers were doing - he said "all furloughed". Seems he's having to deal with things over the 'phone and via e-mail, when the normal (and best/safest/most accurate) method, that is hands-on by an experienced Engineer - is not possible.

1
Alyson30 09 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

> So you haven't been educated ?

> Who do think did pay for your education - the fairies ??

I have. It just wasn’t paid by the British taxpayer because I was educated abroad. So no, he did not pay for my education.

 SDM 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

>  if countries start wanting certificates then your choice is limited.

This is why I think some sort of proof of vaccination will become inevitable at some stage this year to access certain countries/services.

Just within Europe, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Poland Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden have announced plans for either different travel restrictions for those vaccinated or they have announced schemes for vaccine certification for their citizens.

There have already been travel companies declaring that they intend to limit travel to those who have been vaccinated.

Once some countries/companies introduce a vaccine passport/certificate requirement, I think it becomes inevitable that they will become a much more widespread requirement.

 fred99 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Alyson30:

> I have. It just wasn’t paid by the British taxpayer because I was educated abroad. So no, he did not pay for my education.

So you do agree that people in the older age groups, albeit in another country, DID pay for your education.

Who do you think paid for the education of 90+% of Britain's population ?

It's always the case that people pay for others, otherwise we'd be expecting people to start work straight out of the cradle, and finish work when they drop dead, with the added bonus of being totally screwed if you get ill, injured or lose your job.

3
Alyson30 09 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

> So you do agree that people in the older age groups, albeit in another country, DID pay for your education.

Yes, but his claim was that his taxes paid for mine: they did not.

Post edited at 19:34
In reply to fred99:

> But his taxes (and mine) were spent on your education !!

How much was your student loan?

1
 elsewhere 10 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

Quote from URL below.

"Israel plans to open up some hotels, gyms and other leisure facilities in a fortnight to those documented as being immune to Covid-19, Yuli Edelstein, the health minister said.

Having administered Pfizer Inc vaccines to almost 40% of its 9m population, Israel saw the first signs of managing to outpace highly contagious virus variants, he added.

Israel said it would issue an official app allowing users to link up to their Health Ministry files and show if they have been vaccinated against or recovered from Covid-19, with presumed immunity, in order to gain entry to leisure facilities, Reuters reports.

Those to whom neither applies would be able to get a Covid test and, if the result is negative, display it on the app for up to 72 hours of similar access, officials have said."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/feb/10/coronavirus-live-news-an...

 SDM 10 Feb 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

The inclusion of recovered people in their exemptions is madness.

It gives people who have not yet been vaccinated an incentive to go out and catch the virus.

 fred99 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> How much was your student loan?

I never went to University.

In my day only 7% (approx) of people went to University, nowadays it's approaching 50%. Basically, apart from the 7% to University, some went to the local "Tech" after reaching 16, and some did an apprenticeship (in conjunction with work). No chance of 2 to 4 years with 1 or 2 lectures (at most) per week, and long summer holidays (and Christmas, and every other Bank Holiday).

Yet another difference between the so-called "easy life" you youngsters believe us old codgers had and reality.

Of course, those (approaching 93%) of us who didn't go to University have been paying our taxes so that (50% of) you youngsters could.

Post edited at 17:15
3
 elsewhere 10 Feb 2021
In reply to SDM:

> The inclusion of recovered people in their exemptions is madness.

> It gives people who have not yet been vaccinated an incentive to go out and catch the virus.

Israel is vaccinating so fast* that it will be easier just to turn up for a vaccination appointment than find somebody to get infected from. 

*40% vaccinated now so everybody who wants it finished in 6 weeks?

Post edited at 17:20
In reply to fred99:

> Yet another difference between the so-called "easy life" you youngsters believe us old codgers had and reality.

I'm not exactly a youngster. I don't have it nearly as bad as the graduates of today.

> Of course, those (approaching 93%) of us who didn't go to University have been paying our taxes so that (50% of) you youngsters could.

could..... pay an extra 9% tax for their whole working life, which will be many years longer than yours.

1
 tehmarks 10 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

Because when I can't get vaccinated because I'm a 31 year old fit and healthy person at the bottom of the list, it will be an absolute piss-take when my 60 year old colleagues can go back to work because they have while I continue to sit on my sofa, barred from working and barred from any meaningful government financial support?

It doesn't take much imagination to concoct myriad scenarios in which it is unfair and discriminatory.

 AllanMac 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> It quite obviously discriminates against those who haven't been offered a jab yet

Speaking as a crusty old git who is lucky enough to get his vaccination tomorrow, I actually agree with you. Why? Because the jury is still out on whether a vaccinated person can still spread the virus to others. Until we know for sure, I for one will still maintain extreme caution about who I meet, and where I go.

 fred99 11 Feb 2021
In reply to AllanMac:

That's the thing. Just because people have been vaccinated doesn't mean they can't pass on the virus - though current thinking seems to indicate those vaccinated are "less" likely to infect others, which means still potentially infectious.

Because of this, any "passport" won't be of any use until (nearly) all the population has one, and then only to go to another country in the same situation.

There may be exemptions in the meantime for TRULY vital workers, who cannot be replaced with either "zoom-style" calls or local staff. But even then most probably only with extreme precautions regarding isolation before and after travelling, along with repeated tests.

 jkarran 11 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

> Vaccine passport is discriminatory apparently. Can anyone explain why this is? I genuinely don't understand how. I think this will be another govt u turn in a few months and we will follow more progressive countries down this route.

It'll be ok once it's blue.

Vaccine passports/visas in some form are clearly going to be a reality for the next while in order to control risk while  opening up the travel sector without quarantine.

jk

1
Alyson30 11 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

With reported efficacy of 10% on the SA variant, for example, I’m not even sure these vaccines passports  would be worth anything ?

I guess any vaccine passport would have to take into account which vaccine you got, which version, and when.

Post edited at 15:16
3
 elsewhere 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Alyson30:

> With reported efficacy of 10% on the SA variant, for example, I’m not even sure these vaccines passports  would be worth anything ?

Countries may see value in knowing this person will probably be less infectious and probably not need hospitalisation.

I don't understand why but the Oxford vaccine scientists seem to think the current vaccines will still prevent serious illness for the SA variant. Hopefully they are right.  

I guess with 13 million vaccinated in the UK alone we will soon know how effective vaccines are against the SA variant.

 neilh 11 Feb 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

The purpose of the vaccines has always been to reduce the chance of hospitalisation and dying. Anything else has always been a valuable  bonus but not a prerequisite.

We seem to have got this idea that its an alixiar of solving everything.

Alyson30 11 Feb 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> Countries may see value in knowing this person will probably be less infectious and probably not need hospitalisation.

Not much valued I think what they are more interested in is: will you bring some sar-cov2 variant with you?

> I don't understand why but the Oxford vaccine scientists seem to think the current vaccines will still prevent serious illness for the SA variant. Hopefully they are right.  

 

Yeah but if it doesn’t prevent transmission of some variants , you may ask, what is the point.

> I guess with 13 million vaccinated in the UK alone we will soon know how effective vaccines are against the SA variant.

Small scale study in SA indicates it pretty much isn’t effective against symptomatic COVID. Whether it would still prevent serious illness is unknown.

Post edited at 17:31
1
 wintertree 11 Feb 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> I don't understand why but the Oxford vaccine scientists seem to think the current vaccines will still prevent serious illness for the SA variant. Hopefully they are right.  

T cells?

Alyson30 11 Feb 2021
In reply to wintertree:

> T cells?

There is still some hope that it protects against severe disease with SA variant, I wouldn’t bet the house on it though... certainly not enough evidence to issue passports for people to go do whatever they want.

Post edited at 17:38
2
In reply to Alyson30:

"Small scale study" isn't really a strong enough description. It was miniscule. Barely worth calling data*, and yet it was all over the press.

* - many far more statistically significant findings have been (rightly) tossed aside. Depends what suits ones agenda I guess.

 elsewhere 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Alyson30:

If you want certainty make your decisions in 2022.

Alyson30 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> "Small scale study" isn't really a strong enough description. It was miniscule. Barely worth calling data*, and yet it was all over the press.

I agree. But we have to base decisions on evidence that it works, not on absence of evidence that it doesn’t work.

> * - many far more statistically significant findings have been (rightly) tossed aside. Depends what suits ones agenda I guess.

I don’t see why the director of the Oxford /Astra vaccine program would “toss evidence aside” or would have a particular “agenda”

Post edited at 18:30
Alyson30 11 Feb 2021
In reply to elsewhere:

> If you want certainty make your decisions in 2022.

We don’t need certainty to make good decisions.
It’s a situation with multiplicative risk, so when in doubt, just assume the worst will happen.
 

Post edited at 18:34
1
In reply to Alyson30:

> I agree. But we have to base decisions on evidence that it works, not on absence of evidence that it doesn’t work.

Gonna have to stop you there. It's not even 2 weeks since your epic "where's the evidence?" tirade miniseries. You might need to choose having cake or eating it.

Post edited at 19:00
1
Alyson30 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> Gonna have to stop you there. It's not even 2 weeks since your epic "where's the evidence?" tirade miniseries.

Nothing “epic” about asking for evidence when it comes to vaccines. In fact it is pretty bog standard.

And it seems perfectly common sense to me that before we start issuing vaccine passports we should have evidence that those vaccines do indeed prevent the transmission of variant of concern.

Post edited at 19:09
1
In reply to Alyson30:

The 'epic' describes the tirade miniseries.

Post edited at 19:08
Alyson30 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> The 'epic' describes the tirade miniseries.

You’re still upset from being very mildly challenged on lack of supporting evidence for one of your claim ? Grow up a bit ?

Why are you so adversarial ?

Post edited at 19:17
3
In reply to Alyson30:

I'm not upset; after all the "lack of supporting evidence" in that case turned out to be your inability to use a search engine.
This time I was just calling out your hypocrisy, that's all.

Post edited at 19:20
1
Alyson30 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> I'm not upset; after all the "lack of supporting evidence" in that case turned out to be your inability to use a search engine. Just calling out your hypocrisy, that's all.

There isn’t any hypocrisy.

Absence of evidence isn’t treated the same as evidence of absence.

It’s pretty bleeding obvious. But you seem to want to argue the absurd just for the sake of arguing the opposite.

If we want to issue vaccine passports, merely « not having evidence » that the vaccine doesn’t stop the transmission of variants of concern isn’t enough IMO.

I would have thought that such a point of view would be rather uncontroversial.. but apparently I was wrong !

Post edited at 19:31
1
In reply to Alyson30:

> If we want to issue vaccine passports, merely « not having evidence » that the vaccine doesn’t stop the transmission of variants of concern isn’t enough IMO.

That part we can definitely agree on. The 'vaccine passport' is a terrible idea for a huge list of reasons. This one is high up there.

The broader 'immunity passport' is an even more terrible idea for even more reasons. Mostly obvious ones.

Post edited at 19:34
1
 Cobra_Head 11 Feb 2021
In reply to neilh:

> The purpose of the vaccines has always been to reduce the chance of hospitalisation and dying. Anything else has always been a valuable  bonus but not a prerequisite.

Not sure that's right, besides if it stops you getting it AND passing it on then it automatically reduces the chances of hospitalisation and dying.

1
 Cobra_Head 12 Feb 2021
In reply to smollett:

Happening NOW in Israel (not exactly a surprise there or possible ulterior motive) Muslims not allowed to go to Mosques, unless they've been vaccinated and can prove it.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...