Morrisandmoo

Also we must remember that we all agree that "shielding" is not the best idea. We all agree it's not a great idea - regardless of whether it's being done to protect the minority, punish the minority, or protect the majority. No Scottish minority lives on an island alone. We must remember this, when the Scottish Government (like the Austrian government) want to do it to some of the people that live here.

Yes I realise that. My statement is still correct though.

I had the wee ones at the Israel game and we were far enough round in the West stand (away from the North) that the crowd were sitting down. Usually it's like a wave from the North, the further away the more people are seated.

Stop it. I have already looked at the quarter final dates: 9th/10th December 2022. What a Friday/Saturday night that will be for us 😀

When I have been talking about cost previously it's been in it's widest sense - not just financial. Also societal costs e.g. impact on minority groups (obv talked about that quite a bit) as well as social cohesion more generally. We can't just say - minimise Covid at all costs. Because we will be fucked in every other regard if we do. Full cost and benefit assessment is relevant and necessary. In the case of vaccine passports: Financial cost: relatively high (vs alternatives), albeit in absolute terms we waste money on all manners of shite Societal cost: very damaging Effectiveness: very low Bad combination.

Thanks, makes sense.

I'll third that. As soon as the thought passed my mind, he killed the ball out the air with a superb touch. And I thought...maybe not! What a shift he put in. Forget the goal, the hold up play etc was fantastic.

I understand how to apprise alternative opportunities and costs/benefits though. In this case - your imagination that it is a low-cost covid measure, compared to other covid measures, is untrue. Which is the salient point. I am prepared to take your word that the price paid for the development is in line with market rates. However, I would have sooner we spent the money recruiting more nurses rather than giving it to Jumio to help develop an app that will do no good. And soon we will all wish we had done that.

PS how does software development work in the public sector? From what I can tell it seems to be: Tech companies make £millions Tech company fucks up Tech company continues to make £millions Taxpayer takes it up the arse Is it supposed to work like that? Seems weird. For example the company we've just handed £3m to for a shit job are doing pretty nicely...a record breaking quarter apparently, fueled by government contracts no less (in their own words). Good for them, glad we could help: Latest News - Jumio: End-to-End ID and Identity Verification Solutions

I don't. But that's besides the point. I was responding to your question and imagination that it is a low cost measure when compared to other covid measures. Your imagination appears to be wildly inaccurate.

Sadly (on my part) I did ask my MSP for target costs and benefits from vaccine passport. He had nothing.

I don't know - but quite expensive, when I adjust for ongoing time and focus from the government and civil service. I am very concerned if it is using existing infrastructure and we have regardless paid Jumio £3.3m for the ID part and awarded an extra £0.6m-£1.2m contract to Netcompany. For comparison this article suggests it costs us less to run track and trace, so not entirely sure if we can brand it as a "low cost" covid measure: Vaccine passport ID checks cost taxpayers millions among spiralling Covid costs | The Scotsman Regardless of that (which is concerning in this era of government waste and corruption) the expensive bit, which is hard to measure, is time. A lot of minister and civil service time would have worked through the botched launch and technical issues. Endless calls with the tech companies....briefings upon briefings upon briefings...costing £££s. Listen carefully and notice nobody working on fixing education or healthcare during these calls (opportunity cost). Frankly it's a whole lot of time and effort for a whole lot of nothing (and that is an expensive price for nothing). And in the meantime nothing is getting fixed in the healthcare, in our Education or in the economy. Ultimately these things are measured in the currency of people's lives and we are wasting them.

We'd save more lives (in Scotland) by shielding older people, pending boosters, than we will by extending passport controls. That's the main difference. I'm not advocating for either though. Instead I'm predicting that we will choose less effective measures, like passports, despite there being more effective measures (with similar societal costs) available. I don't fully know why we are and will do that. Part of it is probably confusion. I worry that it's also because we are comfortable, as a society, with measures that disproportionately hurt the young, the poor and the black. Why change a habit of a lifetime right? You can see that "it's no skin off my nose" attitude strongly in this thread. Whatever the reason that we like this measure...it is not a rationale one.

Yes!

I love Steve Clarke. He's given me the best times following Killie and now he's doing it with Scotland. What a manager.

That could have been one of the best goals ever seen at Hampden. Christ we are good at football now, aren't we?

I would be supportive of a mitigation strategy if vaccine passports could be effective in Scotland - I am all for the greater good. However, the high general vaccination rates and young population being targeted means potential benefits are extremely limited. Vaccine passports are, at best, a waste of money which could be better invested in more effective measures. I fear they will be more than a waste of money though and will continue, alongside other ineffective measures and blame-centered narratives, to clutter the way. A thought experiment. Two options on the table to save lives: A. Expand passport application by limiting entirely participation of un-vaccinated people in Scottish society. Austria style. B. Shield/lockdown >60s for 4-6wks until boosters administered One of these measures would save a small number of lives and one of these measures would save a large number of lives. A and B respectively. Both restrict civil liberties. However, I guarantee we will choose A (and an increasingly extreme version of A) - because we are not actually prepared, or at least don't have the clarity of thought and singleness of purpose required, to do what is necessary and what works. It's enough that we have a narrative and feel we are doing something (anything!). We are choosing what is easy. In my opinion, blame and discriminate against young, poor and black first - rather than what is effective. We are too invested in marginal (albeit true) narratives e.g. young pass it onto the old therefore target the unvaccinated young and everything will be ok. But nothing will be ok if we keep up with this shite. We will barely make a difference. And everybody will be upset. And it's some of the same folk that look down their nose at irrational anti-vaxers that have a completely irrational view on vaccine passports. Cunts won't swallow the bitter pill.

Yes. Good half. More of the same please, but more clinical like you say

This is false.

I accepted that was a matter of opinion. Personally I am interested in the actual effect of a policy, rather than just asking whether the minority group can comply. I would also challenge whether there truly is equal access when you consider the matter for long enough. But there is not much point going down the rabbit holes of opinion. People are going to believe whatever they are going to believe. You've avoided addressing the matter of fact though. And whether you think the resulting exclusion of poor and black people is good, bad or indifferent. For me, that is a very negative outcome (regardless of whether you think it's discriminatory or not) that should be balanced by sufficient positive outcomes from the policy. I do appreciate that some folk think - they can just do what they are told and get a vaccine passport, like the rest of us, so fuck them. But for me that is irrelevant, the government need to demonstrate that their actions are making society better, not worse. In this case they are making it worse and should stop.

That is a matter of opinion. A matter of fact is that the result of this policy is the disproportionate exclusion of black and poor people from Scottish society. Would you accept that is not a desirable outcome of a policy and should be viewed negatively?

Can somebody start a thread please discussing whether Villa or Rangers are the bigger club please?

There aren't so many people in the UK against getting vaccinated. There are good studies into vaccine hesitancy, if you need to better understand why a minority think that way (linked earlier).

Of course, but that's not relevant to the point I am making. Its an ineffective and discriminatory measure, that will do no good and disproportionately excludes poor and black people from our society. People can almost always choose to comply with government policies, but that doesn't really speak to whether those policies are good or not. Or whether they have a positive or negative effect on our society. You can criticise the poor for their stupidity in not getting vaccinated. I will criticise the government for ineffective and discriminatory policy making.

That didn't take long... Covid: Scottish vaccine passport scheme could be expanded - BBC News Meanwhile Scottish Lib Dem leader Alex Cole-Hamilton said there was "no evidence base" for the use of vaccine passports, adding: "They will not save Christmas." That is correct Alex, they will not save Christmas, or do any good at all for that matter - well assessed. They will, however, disproportionately (and increasingly) keep black and poor people excluded from Scottish society. It is a very bad thing the Scottish Government are doing.