Vaccine Passports

[Morrisandmoo]

On 11/9/2021 at 8:08 PM, Lamia said:

It won't if they go and get the vaccine which is freely available to everyone which is the entire point.

To be fair I don't particularly feel strongly about them but there is no barrier to people getting vaccinating other than choice.

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. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[Morrisandmoo]

11 hours ago, Alibi said:

Correct.  I can't see why so many people are against having a vaccination that could save their life and possibly save other people's lives.  Many years ago I had to have a yellow fever jag to allow me to work in Ghana, and I think i also got a jag for something to work in Trinidad.  Nobody moaned about that requirement then - I think some of the conspiracy theories on the internet are maybe roping in the gullible.  Do these people refuse blood transfusions or any other particular forms of medical treatment?

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). 

[phart]

In Scotland it's about 10% of eligible people that have chosen not to get vaccinated. That's slowly coming down.

Some portion will have been infected prior as well.

The figure will show if this policy is effective or not. I suspect it won't be.

Although other countries want folk to have the passports so if you're travelling sort of compulsory anyway.

Edited November 10, 2021 by phart

[Lamia]

20 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

discriminatory measure,

No it isn't

 

[Morrisandmoo]

2 hours ago, Lamia said:

No it isn't

 

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?

 

 

[Lamia]

1 hour ago, Morrisandmoo said:

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?

 

 

Poor people and black people have equal access to the vaccine so it is not discriminatory. 

[Morrisandmoo]

8 hours ago, Lamia said:

Poor people and black people have equal access to the vaccine so it is not discriminatory. 

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.

[phart]

It's even more complicated than that, you then have to factor in the negative effect of not getting vaccinated has on society, then you have a problem where you can frame it should folk, the immunosuppressed for instance, have to tolerate higher risks when going to concerts etc.

That's why I try and simplify it to what's the primary goal they want if it is just to increase vaccination rates then I doubt it will do that by a significant amount.

I suspect less and less people are feeling a part of society at the moment as well especially the poor and minority groups so they're less willing to do "their bit" for a society that seems to have forgotten them.

Feels weird to talk about the "poor" since i'm poor as fuck myself.

[phart]

In the UK no one is forcing it on kids.

This is why folk are probably calling you paranoid cause you're getting disturbed by things that aren't actually happening.

"Paranoia is the feeling that you're being threatened in some way, such as people watching you or acting against you, even though there's no proof that it's true."

kids get 3 doses of 6 separate vaccines, if they wish, before they are 1 over here. the 6 in 1 vaccine.

Also they can't catch it in the same way. Although AZ after 14 weeks transmision is almost the same once you have it, you're still protected from catching it in the first place. This is covered in this thread as well. Myself and thistlewhistle discussed the study showing it.

[Lamia]

4 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

 

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.

I don't agree that exclusion is a good thing but since they aren't excluded its irrelevant to this argument which is why I haven't previously made comment on that.

Edited November 12, 2021 by Lamia

[Lamia]

2 hours ago, phart said:

Also they can't catch it in the same way. Although AZ after 14 weeks transmision is almost the same once you have it, you're still protected from catching it in the first place. This is covered in this thread as well. Myself and thistlewhistle discussed the study showing it.

The fact that thplinth seems to have his fingers in his ears and is going lalalala when it comes to this point says it all

[phart]

3 hours ago, Lamia said:

The fact that thplinth seems to have his fingers in his ears and is going lalalala when it comes to this point says it all

That's a function of ones worldview being informed by idealogical dogma as opposed to empirical data.

 

 

[Morrisandmoo]

5 hours ago, Lamia said:

I don't agree that exclusion is a good thing but since they aren't excluded its irrelevant to this argument which is why I haven't previously made comment on that.

This is false. 

[Lamia]

4 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

This is false. 

Nope!

[exile]

I don't have a detailed grasp of this issue but while it seems the vaccine passport is pragmatic, seems to work, and is rolled out in other countries (and so is politically defensible, for the greater good), it seems to me there is indeed a risk of exclusion, of a minority of the population.

It seems that it is roughly similar (though not the same) as the issue of photo-ID for voting, the danger that could disproportionately affect marginalised groups, for whatever reason. i.e. if you're against photo-ID for voting, you might be against vaccine passports for similar reasons. 

I think it's at least worth considering as a potential risk and try to mitigate that risk.

[Morrisandmoo]

14 hours ago, exile said:

I don't have a detailed grasp of this issue but while it seems the vaccine passport is pragmatic, seems to work, and is rolled out in other countries (and so is politically defensible, for the greater good), it seems to me there is indeed a risk of exclusion, of a minority of the population.

It seems that it is roughly similar (though not the same) as the issue of photo-ID for voting, the danger that could disproportionately affect marginalised groups, for whatever reason. i.e. if you're against photo-ID for voting, you might be against vaccine passports for similar reasons. 

I think it's at least worth considering as a potential risk and try to mitigate that risk.

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. 

Edited November 15, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[aaid]

16 hours ago, exile said:

I don't have a detailed grasp of this issue but while it seems the vaccine passport is pragmatic, seems to work, and is rolled out in other countries (and so is politically defensible, for the greater good), it seems to me there is indeed a risk of exclusion, of a minority of the population.

It seems that it is roughly similar (though not the same) as the issue of photo-ID for voting, the danger that could disproportionately affect marginalised groups, for whatever reason. i.e. if you're against photo-ID for voting, you might be against vaccine passports for similar reasons. 

I think it's at least worth considering as a potential risk and try to mitigate that risk.

I’m pretty sure that the Venn diagram of “people against vaccine passports” and “people in favour of voter ID” has a pretty big intersection.

Interestingly there is one part of the UK which has had mandatory voter ID for a number of years now, for *all* elections including UK general elections.

[aaid]

2 hours ago, Morrisandmoo said:

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. 

Out of interest, how expensive do you actually think Vaccine Passports are?  I’d imagine it’s a pretty low cost program, certainly in comparison to other COVID related programs.

While I’m not suggesting that it’s something that can be knocked up in a weekend, I don’t think it’s much more complicated as it’s essentially leveraging existing infrastructure for both the data and the delivery.

[phart]

What's the difference between advocating that the 60+ lockdown and Austria locking down the unvaccinated?

 

[phart]

 

[Lamia]

29 minutes ago, phart said:

What's the difference between advocating that the 60+ lockdown 

 

Their lives are effectively over anyway.

[Morrisandmoo]

21 hours ago, phart said:

What's the difference between advocating that the 60+ lockdown and Austria locking down the unvaccinated?

 

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.

[Morrisandmoo]

22 hours ago, aaid said:

Out of interest, how expensive do you actually think Vaccine Passports are?  I’d imagine it’s a pretty low cost program, certainly in comparison to other COVID related programs.

While I’m not suggesting that it’s something that can be knocked up in a weekend, I don’t think it’s much more complicated as it’s essentially leveraging existing infrastructure for both the data and the delivery.

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. 

Edited November 16, 2021 by Morrisandmoo

[aaid]

5 minutes ago, Morrisandmoo said:

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. 

Clearly you don’t have the foggiest idea about software development.

[Morrisandmoo]

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