Double Vaccination Required To Attend Premier League Matches

Things change. Life changes. Two years ago, a British person could pop over to Europe and live and work indefinitely without having to tot up the days to ensure they didn't stay for more than 90 days in any 180-day period. They didn't need a work permit, or proof of income or many of the other things that now apply. All that is because something significant happened to change the previous rules. For someone wishing to go and make a life in Europe their options are now curbed.

Having to be vaccinated in order to mix in big crowds is the same principle. The rules have changed because of the virus. But at least there's a choice. Take the vaccine and continue to do what you wish, or don't and stay at home so as not to have an impact on others. And it's not even telling people to stay home, it's saying they can't mix in crowds of a certain size. Seems proportionate.

The main issue of having a significant (or even small) number of unvaccinated people is that viruses mutate in order to keep spreading and there's no way virologists can predict how the virus will mute. A strain could emerge that is resistant to the current vaccines – potentially meaning people who have been double jabbed are at increased risk of more serious illness – and so we take several steps backwards.

 

No mate. I've got some letters. What are yours? I'll bet they don't have Sc. after them. So you make up a silly little kiddie

 

No mate. You guessed wrong. I've got some letters. Have you? If so, I'll bet they don't include Sc.

Yet again you reveal your ignorance following on from "hastily cobbled together" (which was factually incorrect (fast tracked yes - but missing hurdles no - and being factually correct is REALLY important here)) by dishing out a pathetic, fictional put down.

I get it that you're concerned over 'civil liberties' but you're way off target in your consideration of all the things that are important regarding being vaccinated. It isn't simply about protecting yourself and feeling that protective shield around you despite others adjacent to you not being vaccinated. It's also persuing the goal of virtually kicking this thing into touch completely and denying it the opportunity to randomly mutate into something which renders our vaccine programme thus far redundant. Do you, at this late hour, now understand this? Science eh?

To achieve this objective team players are required. Those who opt out of being team players don't get to watch their team but can go kick a ball against a wall by themselves instead.

 

Jeez - i wasn't certain that neanderthals like this actually existed

All of this "stasi" stuff seems to come from people who weren't alive then

As a Director of a large NHS organisation, who has lost work colleagues to this I find this unbelievable

The vaccine will no longer be optional in my organisation soon - refusing it accepted as resignation!

People are allowed different views but only if they can be bothered to research to support them - halfwits should be ignored

 

I don't think it is the same principle.

Brexit or remaining in the EU was a political choice about the country's direction, albeit with implications for the individual. We make political choices collectively, either thrugh elected respresentatives, or (in this case) via a referendum. Choosing to be vaccinated or not is an individual choice about the thing that is most personal to you - your own body, albeit with implications for the whole population. That has always been regarded as a matter of individual autonomy.

I strongly favour vaccination but I don't think the starting points for these two situations are the same.

 

Those last two paras. are spot on. As long as "in order to" doesn't indicate purpose!

Every organism on the planet (from
the most primitive - viruses (which some don't consider to be alive at all) - right up to us)) makes mistakes when passing on its genetic information from one generation to the next. The vast majority of these mistakes/mutations are either benign or disadvantageous to the prospects for the individual organism but a few confer an advantage.

It's really important to grasp that these mutations are entirely random. This new coronavirus doesn't have 'an agenda'! The Beeb get this wrong all the time with phrases like "what the virus is trying to do" like it's some sort of sentient being intent on outwitting us plucky humans. Attenborough gets it wrong too. The language is really important here to avoid implying intent.

As I understand it there have so far been thousands of mutations of covid-19. Those pertaining to the 'spike protein', which enable it to gain entry to our cells to release its toxicity, are of most concern to us seeing as that's the bit of the virus that all of our vaccines are targeting. And some of those are of more concern than others and become 'variants of concern' or whatever the phraseology is.

Advantage to the virus comes in three forms:

1. Increased transmisability. Spreads more easily between its hosts (us) thus increasing its population and,

2. Increases the 'viral load' (associated with 1 above) and,

3. Gets around our suite of vaccines.

There is absolutely no advantage to the virus in being more lethal. Killing its hosts (us) is a kind of dead-end-street for it. That doesn't mean to say that a more lethal variant might not arise. But it would be unlikely to become a dominant one.

So Lloydinho, my new mate, do you now 'get it'? A principal plank around getting everyone vaccinated is to deny this virus the opportunity to make a random mistake and mutate into something even more serious. Not to imply that the virus might 'grasp its opportunity'. That would imply intent which would be silly. It's amazing what Raymond Baxter and National Geograpic can teach you. Science eh?

 

I see your point and my point is ever-so-slightly provocative but it strikes me the world is entirely interconnected and the socio-political atmosphere created by the Brexit vote has played a huge part in every decision made since. Without getting fully into the farce of the huge implications of a vote carried by 17million in a total population of 60million, at least with the vaccine there is still a choice.

A British person literally cannot do some of the things they were able to do a couple of years ago because of the Brexit vote. There is no choice about that. It may improve over time but there are restrictions now that didn't exist before. Some of those things are dearly important to people. But that's that, choice over.

EVERYONE has a choice about the vaccine but with that choice comes consequences. If the Government and/or private organisations insist on measures that restrict the freedoms of the unvaccinated that's not disproportionate. No one is being forced to take the vaccine, but if you don't you just can't go to the 02 or Villa Park or whatever.

So while not an apples for apples comparison, in this entirely interconnected world the attitudes and actions of the population influence policy and the lessons of Brexit have certainly seemed to embolden the Government to push for more restrictions.

 

I'd have been much more comfortable about the vaccine passport idea if this had been made clear from the start of the vaccine programme. Then it would have felt much more like a genuine, informed choice for the individual and a consistent position taken by the state.

 

That's a huge call. The last 18 months have been nothing if not a 'moving feast'. I'd respecfully suggest that asking the govt. to predict vaccine passports 7 months ahead would be asking too much.

 

Don't agree. The government always knew there was a very strong possibility that there would be a low take-up among certain groups. Ironically the take-up has almost certainly been much higher than could have been predicted, which is another reason that it feels somewhat awkward to be talking about this now, at this quite late stage of the programme.

I suspect the delay in doing this had more to do with political concerns relating to parliamentary support (which haven't gone away, in fact). Of course it was discussed quite early on, and then seemingly rejected, but has now resurfaced.

 

Take up has actually been extremely good and has exceeded expectations. Plus pressure from knobheads in the CRG meant no vaccine passports when they were first mooted.

Situation has now changed with delta variant which has raised threshold for herd immunity if it can be achieved, so we need more people vaxxed. Take up has now slowed right down too.

In any case, it may be that this is an empty threat to drive up numbers of vaxxed.

 

Yes, I understand the public health reasoning for it but it doesn't alter the fact that it is acting as 'stick' for those who thought (and were told) that they had free choice with no specific constraints on their lives if they refused the vaccine - and that makes me uneasy.

I agree with your last sentence.

 

But everyone DOES have a free choice! It's not compulsory. It just means people who are not vaxxed can't do certain things. People without a million pounds can't buy something that costs a million pounds. British people cannot go and live and work indefinitely in Europe without fulfilling certain criteria. A private members club may insist on you wearing a tie. A nightclub might insist on shoes and have a no jeans policy. On an airline you're not free to take a knife in your hand luggage even if you say it's because you want to peel an apple. You're not free to have six pints and drive home without your seat belt on. All of these things curb people's ability to do precisely what they please – and for good reason.

There is at least a choice about the vaccine but there are also consequences to not having it. The only thing that's not an option is declining the vaccine and then doing precisely as you please. It's not a punishment to say people can't risk spreading a contagious virus that makes some people very ill as freely as they wish.

 

Sorry the capitalised emphasis on DOES looks a bit heavy-handed!

 

It's a free choice to have the vaccine, but one which if exercised in a certain way will constrain the way in which they choose to live their lives in other respects. So their future autonomy will be constrained as a consequence of the free choice they make.

Contrast that with my (slightly frivolous) example of rewarding those who get jabbed with a pint. That doesn't constrain the manner in which they choose to live their lives in any way.

I have no problem with restrictions - indeed, as I have said, I would have made the jab mandatory. What I am uncomfortable with is the idea that you are told you are free to do what you want, but then later you are told, 'but actually, if you make/have made a certain choice, we;'re not now going to let you do other things'. For that reason I don't think the other restrictions you cite are comparable.

 

Disappointing to see so many willing to embrace the emerging vaccine apartheid and apparently comfortable with the prospect of seeing the unvaccinated shut out of normal life, demonised and stripped of their civil rights.
I’d be interested to know from anyone with any legal insight (that’s you, I think, @Keighley) if Covid passes are seen to give preferential treatment could their use amount to unlawful discrimination?

 

A significant precedent was set five years ago when people voted to strip others of rights they had enjoyed previously. As I said, events change everything.

I am perfectly happy to have a situation where the chance of sitting next to someone who has not been vaccinated at say, a football match, theatre, on a train or in a restaurant, is eliminated and glad that the expertise of immunologists and virologists is being prioritised.

Having said that, I definitely take your point that it sets a precedent and I suspect it's just the beginning of a creeping set of measures brought in to respond to events. It may be that the rules placed on international travel are here to stay, for example. Travelling in and out of the UK earlier this summer I was subject to tests, I had to complete forms and travel with more paperwork than ever, I was surprised by the level of questioning by border force officials (although that was perhaps a result of travelling with two passports, I don't know).

But, you know, if a nation votes for the Government to take back control of its laws and borders it's not really a surprise that they then choose to do that. I think all of the current measures are on a linear path that can be traced back to the mandate given to them by Brexit and the subsequent general elections. As the saying goes, never waste a good crisis.

 

Under the Equalities Act. I think not, because that applies only to protected characteristics, and vaccinated/unvaccinated isn't one of those.

I posted somewhere - think it was on the Covid thread - that a case could be argued that this amounts to an inteference with private life under Art 8 of the ECHR. Thta could be combined with an argument on discrimination (Art 14) . The court would then weigh the interference with rights agianst the public health justification for doing so, to assess whether the latter was proportionate to the former.

However, as others have said, by the time that whole legal rigmarole is done and dusted the government will probably have achieved its objectves from the scheme (if it gets through Parliament).

 

I think the best analogy is that some tropical countries (or territories within those countries) require proof of vaccination against malaria, dengue fever, etc. and if you can't provide that proof then tough, you can't enter.

 

It is a surprise if a Conservative government takes measures to restrict freedoms, especilally one led by someone who purports to believe in personal responsibilty over state mandate (see facemasks).

 

Oh goody, another smooth segway in to Brexit

 

I''d say a state exercising control over its borders is wholly different to what a citizen can and cannot do within their home country.

 

I sense that you're coming round to my way of thinking, old chum! The fightback is on!!

 

I advise doing a bit of a science refresher. This is a good place to start.

 

I think it's all connected and also fascinating seeing the same style of debate and decision-making on two quite divisive issues. One of the slogans was 'take back control of our laws and borders'. The Government is doing precisely that.

 

Not really. I could refuse to let you into my house if you are not vaccinated, and I would be perfectly within my rights to do so. I'd imagine that, as you say, state of vaccination is not a protected condition, any commercial enterprise could do the same.

 

Not enough to prevent the Delta variant being seeded all over the country. The *****.

 

Well quite, and that is the clearest of the links between Brexit policy and Covid policy.

 

Well, you could refuse to let me in your house if I am black, or have ginger hair, or support Man U or just beause you think I am a bit of a ****, because you own the propertty and I need a licence from you to enter.

A commercial enterprise is in a similar position but doesn't it change the picture if this is a government-backed (? imposed?) scheme with the force of law?

 

Perhaps democracy and the will of the people should decide the matter. Take-up of the vaccine has been very high and may well end up being 75 or 80%. That is an extraordinary mandate and, presumably, enough to impose restrictions on the remaining 20-25% in a relatively small number of circumstances.

 

Well, the will of the people will decide the matter in so far as it has to go through Parliament.

Democracy isn't just about always siding with the majority, though.

 

Vaccination does not prevent soemone getting infected or passing it on. It massively reduces the risks of serious illness and reduces the infectious period.
The rights of vaccinated people or those that are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons, not to increase their risk of being infected, trumps the rights of people who decided not to take the vaccine beacuse someone on the internet told them it would allow Bill Gates to upgrade them to 5G.

Entry to a venue or event is always conditional on certain rules and regulations. Buying a ticket, not being previously barred, being old enough etc etc. As long as every adult in the country who is medically able to be given the vaccine has had the chance to be fully vaccinated, then denying those that make a personal choice not to be vaccinated, is not discrimination, it's a change to the rights of admission. Anti-vaxers who take the decision not to be vaccinated have brought the possibility of not being allowed to do something on themselves. It's exactly the same principle as not allowing smokers to smoke inside in public places.

 

See what you've done?? You've woken up GOBE

 

I think this is exactly the cruclal point. Have they? Because they have also been told that it is their choice whether to be vaccinated or not.

That argument would be much stronger if the consequences of not being vaccinated had been made clear from the start (as they were to smokers).