Legality of vaccine passports

[Gordon R]

serrac - you demand much research from other posters. In short, anyone who doesn't subscribe to your rather narrow view. Perhaps you should seek the information yourself.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, serrac said:

I suspect it was very much the intention of the Jab designers that it would prevent infection and transmission, however since testing did not show this to be the case the next best selling point was it appeared to show a reduction in the severity of Covid symptoms in the Jabbed test cohort.

And you may be clear on the point - others not so much 😄

"Most vaccines reduce chance of infection by 85% to  95% so in round figures you are only a 10th  likely to get infected

 Most vaccines reduce chance of onward transmitting by 40% to  60% so in round figures you are only then half as likely to pass it on."

Your suspicions may be right, I have no idea, and to be honest,  I don’t really care. 
I’m heartily sick and tired of it all now, and just intent on getting on with my life, as I’m sure most are.

I was in Edinburgh yesterday, where some restrictions are still in place. The amount of folk flaunting those restrictions made a mockery of it all really. 

[timps]

4 hours ago, serrac said:

What we are looking at in your graphic is likely the drop off in infections as the Delta wave passes its peak. 

Or the vaccine is working depending on which narrative you favour.
 

4 hours ago, serrac said:

suspect it was very much the intention of the Jab designers that it would prevent infection and transmission,

Very few vaccines produce sterilising immunity (protection from infection) certainly anyone designing an influenza jab knows this. Years of study on influenza vaccines show they typically induce protection from disease, but not necessarily protection from infection so I doubt for one second anyone with a passing knowledge of vaccines thought that.

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by timps

[serrac]

19 hours ago, timps said:

Or the vaccine is working depending on which narrative you favour.

I think you missed the point that there was a massive spike in cases per million (which likely resulted in additional deaths) in the highly vaccinated countries which was not reflected in low vaccination rate countries.  Hard to impose a narrative on that data that favours vaccination.

 

19 hours ago, timps said:

Very few vaccines produce sterilising immunity (protection from infection) certainly anyone designing an influenza jab knows this. Years of study on influenza vaccines show they typically induce protection from disease, but not necessarily protection from infection so I doubt for one second anyone with a passing knowledge of vaccines thought that.

May be true, but much of the coercive pressure for vaccination is based on the implication that the unvaxxed are selfishly putting "others" at risk.  We are vaccinating younger and younger cohorts who's risk from Covid is already effectively zero, and some of them are becoming seriously ill from the Jab.  Why?  To protect granny etc etc.

[timps]

1 hour ago, serrac said:

I think you missed the point that there was a massive spike in cases per million (which likely resulted in additional deaths) in the highly vaccinated countries which was not reflected in low vaccination rate countries.  Hard to impose a narrative on that data that favours vaccination.

Not according to the UK’s data, an increase in cases but not the same increase in deaths compared to the previous spikes.

Comparing country to country is also flawed, a country that actively tests more of its populous is going show more cases. A country that has a slow vaccine roll out is probably going to have a slow or reduced  testing regimens as well hence less cases recorded.

1 hour ago, serrac said:

May be true, but much of the coercive pressure for vaccination is based on the implication that the unvaxxed are selfishly putting "others" at risk.  We are vaccinating younger and younger cohorts who's risk from Covid is already effectively zero, and some of them are becoming seriously ill from the Jab.  Why?  To protect granny etc etc

Herd  Immunity, vaccines only work if a certain percentage of the population have it. Vaccines are just a blueprint so your bodies immune system can fight it, some peoples immune system are incapable even with this blueprint.  If COVID is rampant in the younger generation then those people young or old will die.

Just like other vaccination programs  Measles, mumps, polio when the vaccination rates drop as with the MMR jab scare infections take hold.

Therefore with a vaccinated younger generation a percentage will be made immune so no transmission, another percentage while infected will deal with the virus much quicker so a greatly reduced transmission rate. As long as those two categories are above a certain percentage of population  you have herd immunity and protect the weak and vulnerable immune systems of others.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by timps

[serrac]

7 hours ago, timps said:

Not according to the UK’s data, an increase in cases but not the same increase in deaths compared to the previous spikes.

There IS however a perceptible increase in deaths along with the spike seen in your graphics.  Deaths which arguably would not have occurred in the absence of the spike.  Thankfully not on the same scale as you say.

 

13 hours ago, timps said:

Comparing country to country is also flawed, a country that actively tests more of its populous is going show more cases. A country that has a slow vaccine roll out is probably going to have a slow or reduced  testing regimens as well hence less cases recorded.

True to some extent but doesn't fully explain the situation.
For example Latvia conducts more tests per day than the Netherlands yet is way down in the noise floor as regards cases recorded.  I will note however that Latvia's vaccination rate is 50% of the Netherlands yet the disparity in cases appears to be much more than that, suggesting other factors are in play - perhaps the types of vaccines favored in the different regions.
 

[serrac]

13 hours ago, timps said:

Herd  Immunity, vaccines only work if a certain percentage of the population have it. Vaccines are just a blueprint so your bodies immune system can fight it, some peoples immune system are incapable even with this blueprint.  If COVID is rampant in the younger generation then those people young or old will die.

Just like other vaccination programs  Measles, mumps, polio when the vaccination rates drop as with the MMR jab scare infections take hold.

Therefore with a vaccinated younger generation a percentage will be made immune so no transmission, another percentage while infected will deal with the virus much quicker so a greatly reduced transmission rate. As long as those two categories are above a certain percentage of population  you have herd immunity and protect the weak and vulnerable immune systems of others.

A "vaccine" which is admitted to not prevent infection or transmission can contribute nothing to herd immunity.
There was an outbreak of "cases" on HMS Queen Elizabeth despite 100% of the crew having been double jabbed.

[timps]

59 minutes ago, serrac said:

There IS however a perceptible increase in deaths along with the spike seen in your graphics.  Deaths which arguably would not have occurred in the absence of the spike.  Thankfully not on the same scale as you say.

But this is to be expected, the vaccine is not 100% effective or 100% of the population vaccinated, so when things open up there would inevitably be an initial increase in deaths.

59 minutes ago, serrac said:

True to some extent but doesn't fully explain the situation.
For example Latvia conducts more tests per day than the Netherlands yet is way down in the noise floor as regards cases recorded.  I will note however that Latvia's vaccination rate is 50% of the Netherlands yet the disparity in cases appears to be much more than that, suggesting other factors are in play - perhaps the types of vaccines favored in the different regions.

Population density  (P/Km²) and a high urban population can also skew data. The Netherlands, UK and Malta are at the high end of both in Europe. Latvia and others on the list you posted are at the bottom end, variables like that can and do skew the data somewhat.

50 minutes ago, serrac said:

A "vaccine" which is admitted to not prevent infection or transmission can contribute nothing to herd immunity.
There was an outbreak of "cases" on HMS Queen Elizabeth despite 100% of the crew having been double jabbed.

Of course it can, there are plenty of articles explaining how and why this is the case. As said the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing infection but the data indicates it does prevent infection in a percentage high enough to reach herd immunity. 

The rest, as said before will get infected but should have mild or asymptomatic symptoms, and a few, unfortunately will die. Herd immunity is reached at 60% and above protection from infection, although debate is on going how much above 60% for the different COVID variants.

If 41% or over of HMS Queen Elizabeth were infected then you’d have a point, if not then herd Immunity has been reached according to its definition.

Edited August 3, 2021 by timps

[serrac]

On 04/08/2021 at 00:28, timps said:

Of course it can, there are plenty of articles explaining how and why this is the case. As said the vaccine is not 100% effective in preventing infection but the data indicates it does prevent infection in a percentage high enough to reach herd immunity.

So now you are begging the question - trying to refute my statement that a vaccine that doesn't prevent infection or transmission can't contribute to herd immunity by asserting that it does in fact prevent infection.

On 04/08/2021 at 00:28, timps said:

Herd immunity is reached at 60% and above protection from infection, although debate is on going how much above 60% for the different COVID variants.

This is incorrect, for herd immunity you need whatever percentage level protection from transmission.  This cannot be achieved with a non-sterilising vaccine such as the current crop of Covid jabs. As per the HMS Queen Elizabeth example the virus is able to circulate among even a 100% jabbed population which would do nothing to protect the ~40% without natural or vaccine immunity in your 60% scenario.

If this is what herd immunity actually looks like we are being served a bill of goods.

On 04/08/2021 at 00:28, timps said:

Population density  (P/Km²) and a high urban population can also skew data. The Netherlands, UK and Malta are at the high end of both in Europe. Latvia and others on the list you posted are at the bottom end, variables like that can and do skew the data somewhat.

I concede this point by the way 😀

[Gordon R]

serrac - your pompous posts, containing opinion rather than fact, are funny, albeit unintentionally. Keep it up.😃

[timps]

5 hours ago, serrac said:

This is incorrect, for herd immunity you need whatever percentage level protection from transmission.  This cannot be achieved with a non-sterilising vaccine such as the current crop of Covid jabs. As per the HMS Queen Elizabeth example the virus is able to circulate among even a 100% jabbed population which would do nothing to protect the ~40% without natural or vaccine immunity in your 60% scenario.

What I said is the current COVID vaccines are not 100% sterilising in how they work but did explain that in my other posts. If the vaccine is 95% effective in preventing death only a percentage of that will be by sterilising (protection from infection). Some vaccines are 100% sterilising in how they work, the COVID ones aren’t that type.

So for my hypothetical COVID vaccine it is broken down like this.

95% protection from death - protection from disease

90% protection from serious illness - protection from disease with mild or moderate symptoms.

60% protection from infection - sterilising

(the current vaccines are broken down like the above just the percentages vary depending on which one you look at)

 

Therefore in my HMS Queen Elizabeth example 95% of the crew are protected from death and we only have to protect the 5% that are at risk by using heard immunity.

Herd immunity occurs when a large portion of a community  becomes immune to a disease, making the spread of disease from person to person unlikely. As a result, the whole community becomes protected not just those who are immune.

The percentage of people who need to be immune in order to achieve herd immunity varies with each disease.The proportion of the population that must be immune  to COVID-19 to begin inducing herd immunity is not known, however, it has been shown herd immunity starts at 60% for certain diseases. Therefore with a 100% vaccinated crew with a vaccine that gives 60% sterilising protection then 60% protection from infection is ultimately achieved hence my example.

 

However, a navy ship is a bad example for herd Immunity due to the density population and living conditions not being the same as civilian life.

But it does show that only a small percentage of the crew caught COVID therefore protection from infection is high but not at 100% as some caught it with the vaccine which was my original point, however,  non died so it did it’s job.

But one thing is for certain herd immunity doesn’t require 100% protection from infection to work, that is just called total immunity and not herd Immunity so you do need to change your definition in line with the medical one.

 

Hence if the percentage protected from infection meets the threshold for herd immunity, then you have herd immunity and the chances of an unprotected person catching the disease is  diminished greatly protecting them.

Bearing the above in mind, highly transmissible diseases need a higher percentage of protection from infection to work.

But a percentage  of those that are vaccinated but not protected from infection still have the blueprint to fight COVID and instead of being infectious for 10 days with a bad cough they are infectious for a greatly reduced amount of time with mild symptoms (less or no coughing).

This statistically reduces the chance of transmission (r number) and ultimately lowers the % threshold needed for herd Immunity, so it does play a part in herd immunity via vaccines.

 

To be honest I’m not going to debate herd Immunity all week, I can’t and really don’t want to explain it any better and there are countless medical research papers that do a better job than I.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by timps

[serrac]

1 hour ago, timps said:

To be honest I’m not going to debate herd Immunity all week, I can’t and really don’t want to explain it any better and there are countless medical research papers that do a better job than I.

Fair enough - one last question then.

By what method do they determine that all members of this cohort are biologically incapable of becoming infected Challenge studies are only now getting underway for any of the covid vaccines)?

"60% protection from infection - sterilising"

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by serrac
clarification

[timps]

56 minutes ago, serrac said:

Fair enough - one last question then.

By what method do they determine that all members of this cohort are biologically incapable of becoming infected post-vaccination (Challenge studies are only now getting underway for any of the covid vaccines)?

"60% protection from infection - sterilising"

Initially from controlled clinical trials that are based on how many people who got vaccinated developed the ‘outcome of interest’ compared with how many people who got the placebo (dummy vaccine) developed the same outcome. These were on a scale never seen before but were carried out before the vaccines were ever approved for general use. They do give a very good indication to efficacy of the vaccine and how it will behave in real world use.

However, effectiveness in the real world can differ from the efficacy measured in a trial.

Consequently, this data is now also been compared with data (positive tests, symptoms, hospitalisation and deaths) from the mass testing now on going in the real world and comparing those who are vaccinated to those that are not and seeing if the efficacy given in the trials are similar.

Remember the “60% protection from infection – sterilising” is from my hypothetical vaccine (which I hope to get a hypothetical Nobel prize for) and some vaccines achieved more than this 60% in tests which are now being replicated in the real-world data.

[serrac]

3 hours ago, timps said:

Remember the “60% protection from infection – sterilising” is from my hypothetical vaccine (which I hope to get a hypothetical Nobel prize for)

Seems fair 😂

[Jim Neal]

Latvia's population is ~1.9 million, of which ~1.6 million live in urban areas, with ~630k in the capital Riga.

I must have been to Latvia a dozen times or more, a friend lives there and we go to visit.  When you leave Riga and travel the countryside there is almost literally NOTHING except loads of little hamlets and farms dotted about.  There's probably less than 10 "towns" as such in the country.  Where people live, they live in quite close proximity, and in extended family kind of setups as well with 2 or 3 generations, due to the relative poverty that still exists in Latvia.

Edited August 6, 2021 by Jim Neal

[Mungler]

On 05/08/2021 at 14:50, timps said:

.

Very well explained, and patiently so.

 

[timps]

14 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Latvia's population is ~1.9 million, of which ~1.6 million live in urban areas, with ~630k in the capital Riga.

Using the same website www.worldometers.info

Latvia’s urban population percentage is 69 % whilst the UK is 83%, Netherlands is 92% and Malta is 93%. So those little hamlets do add up and make a difference when comparing different countries.

As a side note I did Vilnius in Lithuania to Riga in Latvia on a 2 h 45 min bus journey in 2017 whilst staying in Eastern Europe, so I have seen first hand  how spread out theses hamlets, villages and towns are however, it is where 31% of the Latvian population live which will skew any comparison data comparing countries.

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by timps

[Jim Neal]

TBH I wasn't trying to make an argument either way, just thought it would be a bit of an insight into what it's actually like there

[Saltings]

ittl    not happen here we are too soft    afraid to upset snowflakes  and keyboard warriors   so let it rip 

[udderlyoffroad]

Having just got back from a Switzerland, which does require vax passports for pubs/restaurants but not yet for shops (though masking up remains mandatory):

No, no way, not ever.

All the waiting staff carry a smartphone on them, and via an app they verify your identity + status using the QR code on your vaxpass and some form of Government ID.

For some reason, people are acquiescing to this nonsense, and are seemingly ok with where this leads.

Of course, the various databases aren't yet talking to each other across borders, so although the app on the waitress' phone told her my full name, DoB, passport no, and all sorts of other details she shouldn't, in a sane world, have access to, my vaccination status came up as negative.  Which is of course not accurate.

Anyone still in favour of this care to explain why?

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

For some reason, people are acquiescing to this nonsense, and are seemingly ok with where this leads.

Because, when people are convinced its for 'the greater good' , an idea instilled in them by repeated conditioning, and a natural fear for the personal safety of them and theirs, they will pretty much agree to anything.

History has taught us this over the last few hundred years, and with a deeper understanding of how our brains work, coercion is pretty easy these days, look at the way we are targeted by advertising, media, and government ?

We think we are in control of our lives, sheep probably think like that too.

[12gauge82]

On 30/09/2021 at 14:11, udderlyoffroad said:

Having just got back from a Switzerland, which does require vax passports for pubs/restaurants but not yet for shops (though masking up remains mandatory):

No, no way, not ever.

All the waiting staff carry a smartphone on them, and via an app they verify your identity + status using the QR code on your vaxpass and some form of Government ID.

For some reason, people are acquiescing to this nonsense, and are seemingly ok with where this leads.

Of course, the various databases aren't yet talking to each other across borders, so although the app on the waitress' phone told her my full name, DoB, passport no, and all sorts of other details she shouldn't, in a sane world, have access to, my vaccination status came up as negative.  Which is of course not accurate.

Anyone still in favour of this care to explain why?

I can not fathem why anyone would go along with this, its been proved over and over that governments can not be trusted with this level of intrusion into our lives, as even if the current government could be, the next one may not. Imagine the likes of Tony Blair having that sort of control, he's a megalomaniac, we'd be controlled like cattle. 

[Saltings]

On 02/10/2021 at 09:11, 12gauge82 said:

I can not fathem why anyone would go along with this, its been proved over and over that governments can not be trusted with this level of intrusion into our lives, as even if the current government could be, the next one may not. Imagine the likes of Tony Blair having that sort of control, he's a megalomaniac, we'd be controlled like cattle. 

government are puppets      if everyone looked out for a neighbour or a venerable member in the neighbourhood old dears etc       send your lazy kids to shop for an old dear        governments in charge want votes talk ****        help your own     if you have two legs of bambi  in the freezer give one away    pigeon pie   etc        help your neighbour   it may come back double fold        for gods sake  a tin of beans could help someone  who will never have a holiday            not worried about any type of passport   not to mention a covid one              ive been hungry             a human kindness  helped me       and i will help anyone                     instead of lay on a beach    do some good  help some one  and give them a start     sponsor  them    thats all they need       a bit of help    a hot meal   a bed and they can look after themselves   going forward  and thrive  for gods sake if you can help a grafter do so      

[udderlyoffroad]

So in summary, that stream of consciousness could be summarised as “I don’t care about vaccine passports, love thy neighbour” -correct?

Well, forgive me if I do.

If you cannot see that the greatest governmental overreach in more than a hundred years, will, amongst other things, make it impossible for you to love thy neighbour without the government at least knowing about it, never mind regulating it, then I don’t think there’s any helping you.

And, for what it’s worth, the classy thing to do when helping others in need, is not to humble-brag or preach about it online.

Actually, on re-reading your post, you appear to be conflating a ‘vaccine passport’ with a travel document called a passport.  They are not the same thing.   You will require a vaccine passport in the UK.  This is happening in Scotland and Wales, and will inevitably happen south of the border.  And be under no illusion, it will start with busy venues, and will end with your “sending your lazy kids to the shop for an old dear” requiring them to show their vaccine passport.

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Actually, on re-reading your post

Youve got a lot more patience than I could hope for