Are You Up For A Chip Implant?

None of those things come from any of those things mentioned. Live in China, sounds like the dream place for you.

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.

Again the seat belt analogy just falls totally short of what is needed here.

Consider hospital surgeons. We don't look at them just before they start operating on someone and say :

"well, on average Bob's a very hygienic person, always carries and uses a handkerchief, covers his mouth when coughing etc so he doesn't need to scrub up or indeed wear scrubs, he'll be just fine as he is in that white t-shirt and jeans !!

I mean that would be ludicrous.

Hence all surgeons follow belt and braces scrubbing up protocols before going into theatre.

Similarly in the context of allowing health workers to come into intimate contact with vulnerable patients in order to treat them, we can't possibly say :

"well, on average many vaccinated people elicit a very good response to the vaccine and so Bob, being vaccinated, probably has good protection levels so we'll just let him loose on vulnerable patients with out any further checks"

That too would be ludicrous not to mention medically negligent imo. Bob may well have Covid ! The only way to tell would be to do a Covid test.

Note also that your statement "we know how effective vaccines are at preventing serious illness and death" is irrelevant here because we're not talking about hospitalisations and deaths. We're talking about transmission, the ability of one person to pass the virus onto another person. As you know, vaccination does not guarantee that you won't still get Covid nor does it guarantee you won't transmit it to others.

So I maintain my opinion that vaccine passporting has absolutely no sound basis in science or any basis in health matters.

The bottom line is your vaccination status simply does not tell us whether you have Covid at that specific point in time.

If we want to manage large venues and prevent transmission of Covid then we need to know who has Covid and who doesn't right there and then.

The only way to do that is to test people.

The seatbelt analogy is used to address your previous point: that the government should not mandate that people use certain technology (for their own safety) and that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against you if you don't use said technology.

I don't personally support vaccine passports, but the reason why some people want them to be mandatory is the same reason people want seatbelts to be mandatory. When we talk about population wide mandates then we have to base policy on averages, not on an individual by individual basis.

We don't say 'seatbelts can't guarantee that every single person won't die in a car crash, so we shouldnt mandate that every driver wears a seatbelt' or 'seatbelts won't stop car crashes, so we shouldn't mandate them'. It would be stupid to say this since the purpose of a seatbelt is to reduce the risk of death on average, not to prevent it entirely or even car crashes to begin with.

The same appies to vaccine passports. People want to use them to reduce the likelihood of hospitalisation and death from Covid. They dont want to use them to stop Covid transmission per se, just reduce the Covid transmittion among the unvaccinated. How effective this is will obviously depend on where they are being mandated, if anywhere.

The two analogies are light years apart. There is scientific evidence that seat belts can save lives in car crashes.

In respect of Vaccine passports I have seen no evidence at all that they can achieve anything

I don't accept your assertion that passports can "reduce the likelihood of hospitalisation and death from Covid" and you've provided no citations to support it.

The two analogies are light years apart. There is scientific evidence that seat belts can save lives in car crashes.

In respect of Vaccine passports I have seen no evidence at all that they can achieve anything

I don't accept your assertion that passports can "reduce the likelihood of hospitalisation and death from Covid" and you've provided no citations to support it.

This clearly can't just be your position, otherwise you would probably be making other threads about how seatbelt mandates are wrong.

Nope. Seat belt mandates don't discriminate against any particular group of people. We don't have a situations where some people are free to not wear seat belts. Again this is why your analogy isn't a good one for a discussion about vaccine passports.

Vaccine passports are imo discriminatory because they are a gateway to services for which groups of society are deliberately excluded. Because of that they should not be supported imo and indeed I believe they should be vehemently opposed.

Exactly the same thing can be said about seatbelts, or even drivers licenses in general (which themself are far harder to obtain than a vaccine). Those who dont wear them (or have a drivers license) arent allowed to drive. How is this rule not discriminatory against non-seatbelt wearers / people without a license? You are prohibiting access to public roads, and numerous jobs, by requiring one.

There are numerous other pieces of technology that act as gatewats to services, particularly smart phones and the internet. A vast number of banks and shops act exclusively online and have no in-person branches / shops. This discriminates against the people who either choose not to use smart phones / the internet or have no access to them. Is this discriminatory too? By your own logic, apparently so.

All the things you describe have a scientific or health or similar basis behind them. Driving license needed by everyone because we need a level of competency among drivers on the road. Seat belts because the science says that they reduce deaths etc. Vaccine passports? Nope, absolutely no science or health basis behind them at all in my opinion. They are imo just an arbitrary restriction and as such they are discriminatory.

Online banking portals do not discriminate because anyone can still use a bank through other routes. If banks said "online banking only" then that would discriminate against those without computers, those who are not computer literate, blind people, mentally handicapped people and a host of others.

Vaccine passports, again, just wholly discriminatory. Need one to get into a theatre? Ok so how can everyone else equally get access to a theatre? They can't. Hence it's blatant discrimination.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that vaccine passports were effective in the same way that seat belts are effective. Would you support them being mandatory to, say, go to the theatre?

Online banking is not the only thing that involves technology. Various services can only exclusively be accessed online, particularly streaming services. Is this wrong?

But vaccine passports aren't effective in this manner. They have imo no basis in science or health matters. Let's stay in the real world not fantasy.




Can you cite any particular group of people in society that are specifically barred from engaging in either online banking or streaming services?

If not, then those things aren't discriminating

I'm using the hypothetical so that I can better understand what you believe, since your current position is confusing me. So... if we assume that vaccine passports were effective would you support them for the same reason you support seat belts? I am not saying they are effective, just assuming they are for the sake of argument.

Sorry but just repeating the same material isn't going to help the debate. I'm not going to deal in fantasy hypotheticals. Deal in reality.

So let's cut to the chase here. Some straight questions for you, all simply Yes/No:

1. Can a vaccine passport determine if a person has Covid at that point in time?

2. Can a vaccine passport determine if a person's vaccine protection is still active and effective or has waned?

3. Does it matter if the fully vaccinated community pass Covid around between themselves?

4. Does it matter if the fully vaccinated community are the majority of hospitalisations?


Those 4 will do.

If you can't or won't answer those then we're done here

What I am trying to do is understand your position,

My position has been clearly stated numerous times. It is that imo:

- Vaccine passports have no basis in science or public health
- Vaccine passports are horribly discriminatory of numerous groups of people which include:
~ the unvaccinated with natural immunity
~ the unvaccinated who test negative for Covid
~ the people who can't take vaccines for medical reasons
- Vaccine passports exist purely as a forerunner to establishing human Digital ID's

again all imho

Do you think that seat belts are discriminatory to those who dont want to wear them?

I dont see how vaccine passports are gateways for digital IDs. We already have something that would be a better gateway for them, but isn't (regular passports).

I think seat belt mandates provide an equal safety benefit to all without prejudice. There are AFAIK no groups of people who could claim to provide the same safety levels as seat belts via some other mechanism.




Millions of people would never buy into or permit their financial and medical data to be digitised into a singular device or database that could be used to govern whether or not they can participate in society i.e. like the Chinese Social Credit system. Vaccine passports would imo enable the State to force people into this situation using medical tyranny as the excuse for mandating it.