Live data from Hacker News

England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

bbc.co.uk

181–190 of 460 posts

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America it’s widely controversial to require ID when voting, but not so in the rest of the world.

> In America it’s widely controversial to require ID when voting Yes, one party seems to think those of a non-white skin color are unable (through ignorance or lack of access) to obtain any form of ID so they can vote.

That's rather one-sided. Both major US parties recognize (almost certainly correctly) that the more friction you put in the voting process, however seemingly reasonable, the fewer low-income people will proportionately vote. And one party considers that a bug while the other considers it a feature.

ADDED: Is there anything in this statement that is remotely controversial?

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#182
post #156

Vaccine passports are less offensive than regular passports.

How come? So it's much more offensive for countries to control who enter them than what goes inside them?

Restricting people's freedom of movement based on their liability to spread dangerous diseases is much more reasonable than restricting their freedom of movement based on where they were born.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#183
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the downvotes. This is a legitimate distinction.

Discussions generally don't sway people. When someone has a fixed worldview and you present facts that undermine that worldview, he perceives you as a threat (like he would a large bear) and reacts to those facts with the same fight-or-flight response that threats generally elicit. Online, this fight-or-flight response manifests as people downvoting you, flagging you, doxxing you, and so on for presenting hard-to-ref…

That's not true: people in the peanut gallery can be swayed. sub-midwits like myself only form opinions based on what smarter people have convinced us about areas we're not experts on.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#184
post #4

Good. There is no evidence to support them. You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread only hospitalisation.

There is, the number of vaccinations in France jumped remarkably after vaccine passports were made mandatory for cinemas, theatres, restaurants, etc. Considering that's the main goal of such policies, it seems like a success. And yes, the main point is to limit hospitalisations, because they're the main limiting factor ( at least in France, but probably in most other developed countries as well).

>Considering that's the main goal of such policies, it seems like a success.

The ends justifies the means right?

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should we invest in vastly increasing hospital staffing and facilities because the current ICU loads are the new normal?

why not? it seems absurd to think that at no point in the future will there be infectious endemic diseases. hospital infrastructure hardly seems like the wrong thing to overbuild.

We already spend a lot on healthcare as it is, more so here in the USA than in countries with universal healthcare. Should we go from spending 17.7% of our GDP to 30%? Just because some people aren’t interested getting a vaccine?

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#186
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America it’s widely controversial to require ID when voting, but not so in the rest of the world.

This is not true. In the UK there is currently no requirement to show ID when voting. There may be soon - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57723200 - but it certainly isn't common in the UK.

In Germany it's either the voting papers sent to your primary residency (same database used to issue ID cards and passports) or your passport / ID card in case you forgot / lost your voting papers. Easy enough, even if the voting papers are a lot easier in practical terms.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#187
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccines cut severity of disease and thus the societal burden of infection. While I agree these measures are potentially draconian it's wrong to say they convey no benefit.

Well said, but I think the problem we're fighting is that people don't view these as vaccines so much as preventive treatment now. The Israel, Malta, and Iceland cases with very high vaccination rates and growing number of hospitalizations means we need to acknowledge that these things don't confer immunity, but that their benefit is still tangible and real in that it confers better outcomes to those that do contract…

> benefit is still tangible and real in that it confers better outcomes to those that do contract the disease

The thing is that a treatment having real and tangible benefits is not an adequate justification for the state imposing that treatment by force.

And yes, laws requiring vaccine passports for participation in public life are a use of state force. If the police stop you doing something, that means the state is using force to stop you doing that thing. If the state mandates that businesses require papers under the threat of fines or losing their business license, that's also an application of force on the part of the state.

Informed consent has been the bedrock of medical ethics for the past 70 years and it would be unwise to throw away this principle just to impose a preventative treatment that might be mildly good for people.

People are right to point out that the push for vaccine passports --- because the vaccines are merely preventative individual therapies --- is a gravely concerning break with nearly a century of tradition and law. In general, we don't mandate things merely because they're good for people, and it would be extremely dangerous to start doing that in general.

Look: elsewhere, people have suggested that I'm claiming that because the vaccines can't stop the spread, they have no benefit. That's not true. They do seem beneficial. Lots of things are beneficial. Vitamin D deficiency, for example, is common and vitamin D supplementation would benefit most people. Do we require that people present evidence of vitamin D supplementation to eat at restaurants? No, of course not! That's an individual medical decision.

The whole point of mandating traditional vaccines is that eradicating a disease has huge positive externalities, ones large enough to justify public health measures --- like vaccine requirements for admission into schools --- that would ordinarily fail on civil liberties grounds. COVID vaccines simply do not have the same large positive externalities. Yes, they might be good for you, but this fact alone does not justify coercive state action.

COVID vaccines are not like the vaccines that have been mandated for a long time in public schools and at border crossings. COVID vaccines are non-sterilizing. The previous vaccines were sterilizing. These are two completely different categories of medical tools, and pointing out that we've done thing X with previous vaccines is not an argument that we should do thing X with respect to COVID vaccines.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#188

Good. There is no evidence to support them. You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread only hospitalisation.

> You can still transmit the virus whilst double vaccinated. They do not slow spread only hospitalisation. With the disclaimer that I'm not an expert: that's wrong. The vaccines are extremely efficacious in preventing hospitalisations and deaths, and are moderately efficacious in reducing transmission.

I'm not sure that's the case: the iceland, malta, and israel results (very highly vaccinated population) are worrying in the extreme; take a look and see if you agree that transmission might actually be worse. As to why that is, perhaps because they think they're not a spreader? Are we actually typhoid mary/joe when we go out thinking that we're not putting people at risk? I think this means wearing masks for the entire population is a good idea.

Either way, everyone should get the vaccine for the health benefit when they actually acquire covid (when not if). The better outcomes are without question, but what is questionable is the rate of spread, especially of delta and the new... is it called lambda(?) variant.

We need to be honest about this: the benefit of the vaccine is clear due to the milder outcomes across even low risk groups. That itself makes it worth it.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#189
post #65
post #39

> "I've never liked the idea of saying to people you must show your papers or something to do what is just an everyday activity, but we were right to properly look at it. We regularly show papers for everyday activities - library card for reading books, ID for a hotel stay, driving license for driving a car, ID to pickup a parcel etc.

But those are largely proving your identity in a situation where you wish to identify yourself. Proving an unrelated fact about yourself solely because the government thinks so is a different thing.

I would say the hotel stay situation is more like a "papers please" than a "situation where I wish to identify myself".

Last time I booked a hotel via an app at the last minute for an overnight stay after going to the pub in a city away from home, the booking process didn't mention we needed to show our passports at reception. It was a new policy for that hotel.

When we went to the hotel, about midnight, of course we didn't have passports with us, why would we? It's not normal to take your passport when visiting a neighbouring city for a night out.

I've stayed at countless hotels, and never had this problem before. But I understand the UK is becoming more draconian so perhaps a rule had kicked in since the previous time I went to a hotel. But I had the impression, it was a recent policy change by this hotel, and "oh, we should update our website".

It was pouring with rain, there were no other hotels accepting bookings by then, and the last train home would be in a few hours. Our Uber had dropped us off, and hotel reception was telling us we had to go outside into to the pouring rain as we couldn't stay despite having paid.

They knew perfectly well who we were. It wasn't an identity thing. We were able to show booking numbers, credit cards, confirm emails, and other forms of identity. But not the type their new policy required.

They required every guest's passport, not just one person. As luck would have it, we each spent about an hour trawling through the contents on our electronic devices and online, and we each found images of our passports in some location or other because of the ubiquitous requests for photos of passports these days, and those photos were accepted by the hotel.

Re: England vaccine passport plans ditched, health secretary says

#190
post #39

> "I've never liked the idea of saying to people you must show your papers or something to do what is just an everyday activity, but we were right to properly look at it. We regularly show papers for everyday activities - library card for reading books, ID for a hotel stay, driving license for driving a car, ID to pickup a parcel etc.

Those IDs are not meant to 1) show your medical history which is a protected right and 2) is used as a way to coerce a medical intervention which is against free and informed consent. Forcing medical interventions in the name of the public good has always degenerated in the worse atrocities and abuses in history.

Vaccinations are already forced on e.g. school-going kids in the name of the public good, for very good reasons!
Post reply on HN