Is having to prove your vaccine status ok? Ethically, not epidemiologically

[creamtime]

I don't think I have any problems with it but clearly many people do. Interested to know if anyone has any convincing arguments?

 

[remus]

Seems fine as long as there's a "good reason" (i.e. the current surge in cases and ongoing pandemic) and free, easy access to vaccination for anyone who wants/needs it. I think the tricky bit is how you decide to phase it out.

 

[galpinos]

I'm undecided. I am happy to get vaccinated and prove it myself, but I have concerns about it on an national level, the precedent it sets, if you implement it how you phase it out, how close it would take us to the forced/coerced vaccinations etc.

Complicated stuff, I'm glad we've got the best minds in the country with a strong ethical backbone currently in the cabinet sorting it all out........

 

[Wellsy]

My biggest real issue with it (I've been double vaxxed for ages and have an app to show it) is will there not be a bunch of 18-whatever year olds who will be basically stuck out of going to clubs for a bit because they only just got their first dose? A bit wank for them and realistically we've shat on them from a great height as a society across the pandemic (hardest hit for unemployment, rinsed for all their money by unis but spent it all sat inside their overpriced housing on a laptop etc etc etc). They've already missed a year.

One thing I will say is that actually the Tory gov probably don't want to bring this in and a lot of their backbenchers will be pushing to get rid of ASAP. But yeah if it's actually needed... why wait until September?

 

[Durbs]

I'm not a yoof, and not been to a club for aaaaaaaages, so perhaps too far detached from it to give the other viewpoint much weight - but I struggle with seeing going clubbing (or indeed foreign travel) as "a right" - it's a privilege, and so having to be double-vax'd to gain entry isn't that much of an ask.

A club is arguably one of the best super-spreader locations there is; lots of people, small space, loud music so people talking loudly right in each others' faces, and (scandal) I suspect some heavy petting takes place too!

So anything that can be done to mitigate the risk of turning every club into a hot-bed of transmission seems sensible to me.

I agree it sucks for those that haven't been out-out with their mates for a while, but whilst I sympathise, I suspect that's why they've delayed implementing it until September so more of them can get jabbed if they want to.

 

[edshakey]

... But yeah if it's actually needed... why wait until September?

Because currently not everyone has had the chance to be double vaxxed, even if they wanted to. I would definitely see mileage in not allowing clubs to open until the point at which they can require double vaccination, but they couldn't do that currently - the only reason young people had to wait was because they were told to, so it wouldn't be right to exclude them until they had a fair chance to get it.

Further to that, clubs would be pretty empty at the minute given their target audience is pretty closely aligned to the people still waiting on second vaccines!

 

[andy popp]

The young people I know don't want the opportunity to go clubbing regardless of their vaccination status, they want the opportunity to get fully vaccinated.

I have a "coronapas" on my phone that proves my fully vaccinated status. I have to show it if I want to eat or drink inside a bar/restaurant, enter any other place of entertainment, visit a museum, or use any kind of indoor sports facility - basically any indoor public space that isn't a shop. I acknowledge that the big difference is that proof of a negative test older than 72 hours also suffices (proof of test results is also digital). This not only reduces (hopefully) the chances of mingling indoors with infected people but also drives testing, which is very readily available. Seeing as almost other restrictions have been removed it remains Denmark's most powerful mitigating tool and I'm all for it. If circumstances dictated that it be made vaccinated only then I would be willing to support that on a temporary basis.

I see people arguing that such systems are impossible to implement, who would do the checking etc. but they are checked without fail here. A couple of weeks ago I was refused entry to a museum because I hadn't realised my test status had expired less than an hour before.

 

[mrjonathanr]

The situation with clubs- as with much of the COVID mitigations - makes absolutely no sense.

If double vaccination is required for safe opening, it’s required. No entry without it now or later.

If it’s not required now, it is (surely?) not required for safe opening, so it need not be brought in later.

Which is it?

 

[Wellsy]

The young people I know are all mad for going out clubbing and all of em are just going to house parties in the meantime so in all fairness I doubt that transmission amongst them is actually going to be that much worse.

Personally I am excited to go out to a nightclub and probably will in the next couple of weeks. But I digress. Point is; clubbing is a privilege not a right 100%, but I suppose (and this is less a policy view and more a comment of sympathy) I really do feel for young people of late. They've had the short end of the stick on a lot of things and been blamed for a lot, while actually the vast majority of them have steadfastly kept to the rules which have stuck them inside during a year that is commonly held to be one in which they should be out getting pissed, dancing and whatever. It's just a shame.

You're probably right about the delay being so that those exact people can get that second jab by the time it comes in, in all fairness. And actually if someone refuses to get the jab, my sympathy for them tends to evaporate sharpish.

 

[Will Hunt]

Worth considering here that not everybody who declines one or both doses fits neatly into the nutjob-antivaxxer-we-don't-have-to-care-what-they-think category (that's not a category that I think exists, but I expect it's how a lot of people see it).

One friend had the 1st dose and had such a ghastly reaction that they won't be going for the 2nd. I believe they have a family history of this sort of reaction to vaccinations. If remember correctly there are multiple medics in the family (late father was a consultant) who they have discussed this with, so hardly ignorant.

Another friend had the first dose and a day or two later her jab-arm went completely dead (and remained so for a while). Reported to the hospital where the doctors did plenty of tests but found no explanation.

You can argue all you like about the balance of risks, but this looks at the issue at a population level. These individuals quite reasonably perceive a risk to their health from having the second dose. If you have a vaccine you will definitely be exposed to the risks of having one; if you don't then you may actually avoid getting COVID-while-unvaccinated and thus avoid all the risks that go with that. I don't know if I would make the same decision that these people have made, but I don't think they are unreasonable decisions to make.

I'm undecided about whether they're ethically a good idea or not, but you have to recognise that widely adopting vaccine passports would be a massive divergence from our current position of allowing people to make their own decisions about their medical treatment without coercion.

 

[Bonjoy]

The situation with clubs- as with much of the COVID mitigations - makes absolutely no sense.

If double vaccination is required for safe opening, it’s required. No entry without it now or later.

If it’s not required now, it is (surely?) not required for safe opening, so it need not be brought in later.

Which is it?

It's not coherent if viewed purely as a measure to reduce transmissions. However, I suspect the point of it is to create a disincentive to not having the vaccine among people who might not bother otherwise due to apathy, or a belief that they don't need it medically, or consider it not worth the risk. It creates a self interest incentive i.e. it's about coercion. If viewed in those terms it makes sense to introduce it only when everyone has had an opportunity to receive the jabs.

 

[Will Hunt]

proof of a negative test older than 72 hours also suffices (proof of test results is also digital)

Are these PCR or lateral flow tests, Andy?



On a different note. Rights, privileges, freedoms, responsibilities, obligations. What are the definitions of these things? Saying "going to a nightclub is a privilege not a right" is a nice way of saying that you don't think it's important enough to be inalienable, but I wouldn't have defined it as either. Thinking aloud here: going to a nightclub is a freedom isn't it? And don't we have a right to our freedoms?

I'm going to have a go at answering my own question:

Rights - things that you have which are inalienable and are protected by law.
Freedoms - things that you can choose to do, within the law.
Privileges - things that you can do, but which others cannot do.
Responsibilities - things that you ought to do.
Obligations - things that you must do.

 

[andy popp]

proof of a negative test older than 72 hours also suffices (proof of test results is also digital)

Are these PCR or lateral flow tests, Andy?

Antigen - that's lateral flow isn't it? Far from perfect, I know. Obviously, if you get a positive you have to do a PCR - also very freely availble. Also obviously, I meant to not older than 72 hours. Cases are rising here but not explosively and most restrictions were removed several weeks ago - the coronapas must be part of the explanation for that.

Don't know if anyone noticed (probably not) but Denmark moved the UK to its red list a couple of days ... with an exemption for Wales.

I wasn't sure if you were saying "nut job anti-vaxxers" are not a real category in your post above? Sadly there are least two in my family.

 

[Fiend]

Pretty sure music above 200bpm kills the curryonavirus so my scene should be okay unk:

 

[abarro81]

I would find it weird and don't think I'd be entirely comfortable with a "vaccine only" passport, rather than one that allowed negative test instead of vaccination. I'm not entirely sure why I feel that way though, I suspect I'd need to put some real effort into pondering the ramifications to be able to articulate why...

 

[Will Hunt]

nutjob-antivaxxer-we-don't-have-to-care-what-they-think category

Nut job anti-vaxxers are definitely a thing, but I don't think it's a long-term solution to try and deal with them by ignoring them and riding roughshod over their beliefs.

Budding participants in the culture war would very happily make them an underclass with reduced freedoms, to punish them for their beliefs. What other beliefs which the majority might deem unreasonable might we decide to punish someone for?

There are lots of things (including vaccinations) which a doctor might advise, including interventions required to protect an individual's life or the health of a community, which will be refused on religious grounds. If somebody refuses a vaccine, let's say for an infectious, asymptomatic disease other than COVID, on religious grounds, should they be excluded from society?

 

[dr_botnik]

It has been funny watching the anti vaxxers I know melting down about this. And, it'll do some of the filtering for you if you're going out to a club to pull..

 

[petejh]

I don’t have a strong opinion (voted for the second option but could also have voted the first or, with more information, the last).

It’s clearly being used as a tool for getting more young people vaccinated, with relatively low political consequences. Seems like a practical policy from that point or view.

Instead of clubbing, what if you had to be vaccinated to be able to go to work? Would people feel the same?

 

[Paul B]

I'm on the fence with this one, I know the Cons. have a whopping majority (although given their back-benchers aren't fond of legislating for mask wearing perhaps not) but will this be voted on before coming into force?

The way Greater Manc. and Lancs. as a whole were treated last year, with changes to legislation receiving little to no scrutiny wasn't great.

 

[Durbs]

On a different note. Rights, privileges, freedoms, responsibilities, obligations. What are the definitions of these things? Saying "going to a nightclub is a privilege not a right" is a nice way of saying that you don't think it's important enough to be inalienable, but I wouldn't have defined it as either. Thinking aloud here: going to a nightclub is a freedom isn't it? And don't we have a right to our freedoms?

I agree, but often there's an argument from the "I don't wanna" crowd that this is somehow impinging on their "rights", same as the "It's outrageous I have to get a vaccine to go to [insert country here]" view.
You don't have a right to go to other countries if you don't meet their rules, in fact, you don't have a "right" even if you do - there's an agreement in place to let you do so. The terms of those agreements can change.

So yes, "freedom" is a much more accurate term, but people often use the more politically/important sounding word "right" instead - which I don't think it is.

I guess the question then, is whether "you're free to go clubbing, as long as x" is still free? i.e. is "freedom" binary or a spectrum?