Are You Up For A Chip Implant?

Your counter analogy with regards to seat belts isn't comparable to vaccine passports. The colour of a seatbelt doesn't affect your safety, so there is no need for a seatbelt to be a specific colour. Being vaccinated however, as opposed to not being vaccinated, does affect on your safety. You are safer being vaccinated. All a vaccine passport would do is confirm that you've been vaccinated.

My safety can be assured EITHER by being vaccinated OR by having natural immunity imo

So why should this assessment of safety as you put it, be permitted to discriminate against those with natural immunity?

Assuming that safety provided by the vaccines and natural immunity are equivalent, is there any way to prove someone has natural immunity?

Is there any way to prove someone has immunity as a result of being vaccinated? Genuine question?

One could say the same about vaccine passports. That companies are free to develop the software that supports them and businesses are free to use that software if they wish.

The problem comes when such technology is either mandated for populations and/or if governments permit such companies and businesses to actively discriminate against groups of people through the use of such technology.

Thus as a VERY crude example you could produce say a scanning machine that could determine your ethnicity.

Businesses could then decide to only allow people into their shops or venues based on type of ethnic people they choose to allow.

This would constitute a form of clear discrimination for which we have laws. We've spent years trying to remove discrimination in society.

Governments should NOT imo be permitting the use by businesses of any kind of technology that engages in forms of discrimination.

Hence, in respect of vaccine passports and any associated microchips that might be used to hold passport data, the government should NOT imo be permitting the use of such because they simply discriminate against groups of people, such as those who are not vaccinated but yet have strong and lasting natural immunity.

In the end the ethics of how a technology is used and exploited are far more important than the functionality and convenience of the technology itself

Clinicial trials can verify whether a vaccine will grant people immunity, or otherwise just significantly protect them from the virus. But this wasn't really the point of my question.

We have three groups of people:

A) Those who are vaccinated.
B) Those who are not vaccinated but have natural immunity.
C) Those who are not vaccinated and don't have natural immunity.

The question you've asked is: why should we discriminate against people from Group B when they have the same level of protection as people from Group A?

Assuming this were true, my question is: how can we tell if someone is in Group B? We can tell if someone is in Group A by looking at their medical history (or with vaccine passports). How can we do the same for people in Group B? If someone is unvaccinated but wants to visit, say, a concert then how can we distinguish if they have natural immunity or not?

There are already plenty of examples of companies who only provide access to specific products or services if you own/use certain technologies - through an app, for example

My safety can be assured EITHER by being vaccinated OR by having natural immunity imo

So why should this assessment of safety as you put it, be permitted to discriminate against those with natural immunity?

But are not those technologies available to all? Is there any technology you can think of that for example prevents black people from using it or which prevents black people from using the services the technology is governing or vetting?

You've missed the point of my previous question.

I'll explain it further. A vaccine serves only to stimulate the immune system in the hope that the response will be a good one and teach the immune system to recognise the pathogen. However everyone's immune system is different and many people have very poor immune systems. Those with poor systems are unlikely to elicit a good response to the vaccine and consequently their level of protection against Covid could be anything from zero to full protection. On this basis what I am saying to you is your Group A is not a simple group.

You have in fact 5 Groups:

1. The vaccinated who elicited a good response to the vaccine and have strong but quickly waning protection
2. The vaccinated who didn't elicit a good response to the vaccine and have weak or questionable protection
3. The vaccinated who also have natural immunity from having had the virus
4. The unvaccinated who have natural immunity from having had the virus
5. The unvaccinated who have no natural immunity


and it's not even as simple as the above because 20%-50% already had levels of immunity to Covid before it ever arrived, immunity gained from past bouts of colds and Flu and ILIs and other Coronaviruses [1]

So I ask my question again. Is there any test that shows whether a vaccinated person (or unvaccinated) has elicited a good response to either a vaccine or the virus itself and can that response be measured and quantified in terms of the strength of their immunity gained?

My guess is there isn't.

And that makes a total farce of any notion of vaccine passporting which was already farcical because vaccinated people can and do still get Covid and spread it around. For the past 10 weeks or more the vaccinated have accounted for the vast majority of all Covid cases for ages 18yrs and over as per previous citation.

Thee's simply no basis whatsoever for vaccine passports. They must be vehemently opposed imo because they have absolutely no basis in science or health matters that I can determine.

As it seems natural immunity doesn't count as immunity at all for some people. So in the history of mankind and long before vaccines were invented the human race has survived somehow eventhough we are constantly exposed to different pathogens.

Vaccines are available to all. Your choice not to get vaccinated is not the same as somebody being born black, for reasons that are beyond obvious.

Lol. Throughout most of human history people were dropping like flies to diseases that we have since cured or found life saving treatments for. Not sure what point you're trying to make here, that vaccines are somehow inferior to nature killing is in the millions?

Vaccines are available to all. Your choice not to get vaccinated is not the same as somebody being born black, for reasons that are beyond obvious.

"So I ask my question again. Is there any test that shows whether a vaccinated person (or unvaccinated) has elicited a good response to either a vaccine or the virus itself and can that response be measured and quantified in terms of the strength of their immunity gained?" - In the case of vaccinated people, yes. I've already given an answer to this. Clinical trials form the basis of understanding how effective a vaccine is. If a vaccine is bad at elliciting a response among people with weak immune systems then a trial could show this.

"And that makes a total farce of any notion of vaccine passporting which was already farcical because vaccinated people can and do still get Covid and spread it around. For the past 10 weeks or more the vaccinated have accounted for the vast majority of all Covid cases for ages 18yrs and over as per previous citation." - This is because the vast majority of people are vaccinated. Your own citation explained this and warned readers of the misinterpretation you're making. Did you even read it?

So, once again, I'll return my question: Is there a way to test that an unvaccinated person has elicited a good immune response to the virus? For the case of vaccinated people we already have this measure. For unvaccinated people you haven't given an answer.

1. Sorry but that's just not right. No clinical trial can determine how every single individual person on the planet will respond to a vaccine.
Everyone will react differently to the vaccine. Some people will elicit very poor responses, some people strong responses. This is basic virology. You need to honestly face up to this as at the moment you appear to be in denial about it. The Pfizer vaccine was shown to be 95% effective against the original virus strain in the vaccine trials but that absolutely does NOT mean that every person vaccinated will elicit an immune response that delivers that level of protection. Many immune compromised people won't produce a strong response and so will have to take extra precautions around people probably for the rest of their lives.

2. Yes of course but knowing why they are the majority of people with Covid doesn't change the fact that THEY ARE STILL that vast majority of people with Covid does it ?!!!!! So what possible use is a vaccine passport? It's totally meaningless when the vast majority of people who currently have Covid are those vaccinated people. You can't wave such people freely into a large venue as tons of them will likely have Covid ! You HAVE to test people to find out if they DO or DO NOT have Covid. It's that simple.

3. No sorry you don't have such a measure for vaccinated people. You have absolutely ZERO information to tell you what level of protection any vaccinated person has. Their vaccine protection may have waned to almost useless levels over the past few months. Their immune systems may not have elicited a strong response in the first place. No-one has the first clue how well they are protected when they turn up at a venue. Not do they know if that person currently has Covid unless they test. The whole idea of passporting is a complete nonsense.

Ok we're just going round in circles.

I don't remotely agree with anything you're saying there about people's immune response. Every individual will be different and no vaccine trial can ever know what the vaccine response will be for every individual in society. It' all guess work and assumptions.

Vaccine passports can't possibly imo limit the spread of disease among the unvaccinated when the vast majority of all Covid cases for anyone over 18yrs are the fully vaccinated community. That's just crazy.

We shall agree to disagree and I'll leave you to your thoughts.

"Every individual will be different and no vaccine trial can ever know what the vaccine response will be for every individual in society. " - Of course not, nor are people saying they can. What vaccines can tell us, however, is the average affect over a wide enough population. This is what we base the risk off. It's not "all guess work and assumptions" because we know how effective vaccines are at preventing serious illness and death. Returning to the seatbelt analogy: we don't mandate seatbelts because we know they'll stop every person from dying in every car crash, we mandate them because on average people are far less likely to die in a car crash if they are wearing one.

"Vaccine passports can't possibly imo limit the spread of disease among the unvaccinated when the vast majority of all Covid cases for anyone over 18yrs are the fully vaccinated community. That's just crazy." - Depends on how they're applied. If you mandate vaccine passports for heavily crowded locations, such as bars, shopping centres, etc, then you limit where unvaccinated people can go and, thus, their likelihood of them catching Covid.

Yet you
- use the internet
- own and use a mobile phone
- have a bank account and card that you use to shop in all manner of capitalist run businesses
- are a citizen of the UK
- travel from place to place
- use the NHS

All of it tracked, monitored and data about you accumulated with or without your explicit consent.