The Lemon Fool

I recently came across three items of legislation (two international, one national) which relate to vaccinations, compulsion and discrimination. They are:

1. The vaccines have not completed Phase 3 trials and are therefore de facto experimental. The Nuremberg Code 1947, created after World War II with regard to medical experimentation, states that:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

2. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which the UK remains a member, passed Resolution 2361 on 27 January 2021, Paragraph 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 in which it was stated that member stages are urged to:

Ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves.
Ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated.

3. The Equalities Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability. There are many categories of this that would render a “vaccination passport” illegal on the grounds that an individual cannot be vaccinated owing to a health condition.

IANAL but it seems to me that the UK Government could have a problem with introducing any system that differentiates between those who have been vaccinated and those who have not.

Does anyone know how the Government would be able to introduce their so-called "passport" scheme without falling foul of any of the above legislation?

Neddy (just curious).

SeagoonN wrote:Does anyone know how the Government would be able to introduce their so-called "passport" scheme without falling foul of any of the above legislation?

AIUI, the "passports" being mooted will also include if you've had a recent test. So those that haven't been vaccinated, for whatever reason, can display a recent negative test result instead.

As of this Friday everyone in England will be able to get two covid tests per week for free. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/twice-weekly-rapid-testing-to-be-available-to-everyone-in-england

mc2fool wrote:

SeagoonN wrote:Does anyone know how the Government would be able to introduce their so-called "passport" scheme without falling foul of any of the above legislation?

AIUI, the "passports" being mooted will also include if you've had a recent test. So those that haven't been vaccinated, for whatever reason, can display a recent negative test result instead.

As of this Friday everyone in England will be able to get two covid tests per week for free. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/twice-weekly-rapid-testing-to-be-available-to-everyone-in-england

This raises the question of what "proof of a recent negative test" looks like. It will almost certainly not be one of the free self administered lateral flow tests that will be available to all.

John

redsturgeon wrote:This raises the question of what "proof of a recent negative test" looks like. It will almost certainly not be one of the free self administered lateral flow tests that will be available to all.

If it was good enough for cross-channel lorry drivers, why not?

EDIT: Or is it the self-administered bit that would rule it out?

Scott.

Does that make the requirement to have a valid certificate of Yellow Fever Innoculation to enter certain countries invalid?

It is likely that other countries will insist on a vaccination certificate to allow us to cross their border.

TJH

swill453 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:This raises the question of what "proof of a recent negative test" looks like. It will almost certainly not be one of the free self administered lateral flow tests that will be available to all.

If it was good enough for cross-channel lorry drivers, why not?

EDIT: Or is it the self-administered bit that would rule it out?

Scott.

Yes it is the self administered bit that would make it useless.

John

redsturgeon wrote:

mc2fool wrote:

SeagoonN wrote:Does anyone know how the Government would be able to introduce their so-called "passport" scheme without falling foul of any of the above legislation?

AIUI, the "passports" being mooted will also include if you've had a recent test. So those that haven't been vaccinated, for whatever reason, can display a recent negative test result instead.

As of this Friday everyone in England will be able to get two covid tests per week for free. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/twice-weekly-rapid-testing-to-be-available-to-everyone-in-england

This raises the question of what "proof of a recent negative test" looks like. It will almost certainly not be one of the free self administered lateral flow tests that will be available to all.

John

Why not? I agree that there's some room for doubt about the accuracy of self-administered tests (although I've been doing LFD tests under the guidance of a trained person for several months now and I personally am confident that I can do the tests well enough). Confirmatory PCR tests after a positive LFD test are being reintroduced but I can't see any logic in limiting any certification of COVID status to people who have had a false-positive LFD test followed by a negative PCR.

And PCR tests aren't routinely available to asymptomatic people so they can't be requiring that either.

chas49 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:

mc2fool wrote:AIUI, the "passports" being mooted will also include if you've had a recent test. So those that haven't been vaccinated, for whatever reason, can display a recent negative test result instead.

As of this Friday everyone in England will be able to get two covid tests per week for free. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/twice-weekly-rapid-testing-to-be-available-to-everyone-in-england

This raises the question of what "proof of a recent negative test" looks like. It will almost certainly not be one of the free self administered lateral flow tests that will be available to all.

John

Why not? I agree that there's some room for doubt about the accuracy of self-administered tests (although I've been doing LFD tests under the guidance of a trained person for several months now and I personally am confident that I can do the tests well enough). Confirmatory PCR tests after a positive LFD test are being reintroduced but I can't see any logic in limiting any certification of COVID status to people who have had a false-positive LFD test followed by a negative PCR.

And PCR tests aren't routinely available to asymptomatic people so they can't be requiring that either.

How will anyone one know for certain:

1. When you did the test?

2. That you did it correctly.

3. That it is even your test result.

John

EDIT. Of course you could perform the test in front of whoever needs to see it but that is very time consuming. ie. a 15 minute wait for results of each test.

redsturgeon wrote:

chas49 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:
This raises the question of what "proof of a recent negative test" looks like. It will almost certainly not be one of the free self administered lateral flow tests that will be available to all.

John

Why not? I agree that there's some room for doubt about the accuracy of self-administered tests (although I've been doing LFD tests under the guidance of a trained person for several months now and I personally am confident that I can do the tests well enough). Confirmatory PCR tests after a positive LFD test are being reintroduced but I can't see any logic in limiting any certification of COVID status to people who have had a false-positive LFD test followed by a negative PCR.

And PCR tests aren't routinely available to asymptomatic people so they can't be requiring that either.

How will anyone one know for certain:

1. When you did the test?

2. That you did it correctly.

3. That it is even your test result.

John

EDIT. Of course you could perform the test in front of whoever needs to see it but that is very time consuming. ie. a 15 minute wait for results of each test.

I agree that those questions raise an issue. A cynic might take the view that the govt want people to be able to get a 'passport' to go to the footie or the pub or whatever, so they're going to trust the common sense of the Great British public. (Can you see a problem with that? )

chas49 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:

chas49 wrote:
Why not? I agree that there's some room for doubt about the accuracy of self-administered tests (although I've been doing LFD tests under the guidance of a trained person for several months now and I personally am confident that I can do the tests well enough). Confirmatory PCR tests after a positive LFD test are being reintroduced but I can't see any logic in limiting any certification of COVID status to people who have had a false-positive LFD test followed by a negative PCR.

And PCR tests aren't routinely available to asymptomatic people so they can't be requiring that either.

How will anyone one know for certain:

1. When you did the test?

2. That you did it correctly.

3. That it is even your test result.

John

EDIT. Of course you could perform the test in front of whoever needs to see it but that is very time consuming. ie. a 15 minute wait for results of each test.

I agree that those questions raise an issue. A cynic might take the view that the govt want people to be able to get a 'passport' to go to the footie or the pub or whatever, so they're going to trust the common sense of the Great British public. (Can you see a problem with that? )

No problem at all.

"Have you got Covid sir?"

"No"

"That's fine come right in"

To be fair though Boris has said no passport will be needed for the pub.

John

redsturgeon wrote:
To be fair though Boris has said no passport will be needed for the pub.

John

On past form that means you definitely will need one by the end of next week

chas49 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:

chas49 wrote:
Why not? I agree that there's some room for doubt about the accuracy of self-administered tests (although I've been doing LFD tests under the guidance of a trained person for several months now and I personally am confident that I can do the tests well enough). Confirmatory PCR tests after a positive LFD test are being reintroduced but I can't see any logic in limiting any certification of COVID status to people who have had a false-positive LFD test followed by a negative PCR.

And PCR tests aren't routinely available to asymptomatic people so they can't be requiring that either.

How will anyone one know for certain:

1. When you did the test?

2. That you did it correctly.

3. That it is even your test result.

John

EDIT. Of course you could perform the test in front of whoever needs to see it but that is very time consuming. ie. a 15 minute wait for results of each test.

I agree that those questions raise an issue. A cynic might take the view that the govt want people to be able to get a 'passport' to go to the footie or the pub or whatever, so they're going to trust the common sense of the Great British public. (Can you see a problem with that? )

Speaking as someone who is the Covid Officer at a football club, I can say we (the clubs) haven't yet been involved in discussions about Covid passports and spectators (it's possible the Government, DCMS and the FA etc. may have started initial conversations though). The potential issues aren't just about the "passport" (whatever that turns out to be), but the "policing and enforcing" too. It's not going to work if relying solely on existing ticket inspectors and stewards in its current form.

I'm always sceptical about the "discrimination" argument. Society discriminates against people on a range of issues, and it has never been a problem previously. It's ironic that it's some of Tories who are jumping on this particular complaint - the party which upholds traditions and the status quo or at least used to.

But, I agree with some of the foregoing posts on the problems of testing. I don't see how there can be a trustworthy testing scheme at present without horrendous delays. Will this be another of Boris's ideas going off at half-cock? Indeed, how could it be anything but?

Arb.

redsturgeon wrote:
How will anyone one know for certain:

1. When you did the test?

2. That you did it correctly.

3. That it is even your test result.

John

EDIT. Of course you could perform the test in front of whoever needs to see it but that is very time consuming. ie. a 15 minute wait for results of each test.

I quite frequently signing things to the effect that "I promise X is true and if I lie about it I may go to prison." There is in principle no difference here.

In practice it matters how many people are willing to lie about it, how many failures would be needed to break containment, what we are do to support honest people and how serious we are in applying penalties.

Typhoid Mary was unusual. Most of the people informed they were typhoid carriers stopped being cooks. Hopefully most of the rest of us would support those who stopped being cooks so the entire burden does not fall on those with the disease.

9873210 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:
How will anyone one know for certain:

1. When you did the test?

2. That you did it correctly.

3. That it is even your test result.

John

EDIT. Of course you could perform the test in front of whoever needs to see it but that is very time consuming. ie. a 15 minute wait for results of each test.

I quite frequently signing things to the effect that "I promise X is true and if I lie about it I may go to prison." There is in principle no difference here.

In practice it matters how many people are willing to lie about it, how many failures would be needed to break containment, what we are do to support honest people and how serious we are in applying penalties.

Typhoid Mary was unusual. Most of the people informed they were typhoid carriers stopped being cooks. Hopefully most of the rest of us would support those who stopped being cooks so the entire burden does not fall on those with the disease.

In principle yes, in practice though what are the chances of getting caught with this?

Remind me how many people are self isolating when they have symptoms or a positive test?

John

By the end of September, full vaccination will be required
Johnson today ...

We're planning to make full vaccination the condition of entry to where large crowds gather

About as palatable as the BNP issuing English passports and forbidding being out and about without one.

1nvest wrote:By the end of September, full vaccination will be required
Johnson today ...

We're planning to make full vaccination the condition of entry to where large crowds gather

About as palatable as the BNP issuing English passports and forbidding being out and about without one.

By the end of September... I wish.
I fully approve.
If it happens it will put pressure on those who should/could be vaccinated but aren't. Why should they be allowed to put others at risk.

So long as all our previous freedoms are eventually restored, of course.

V8

88V8 wrote:

1nvest wrote:By the end of September, full vaccination will be required
Johnson today ...

We're planning to make full vaccination the condition of entry to where large crowds gather

About as palatable as the BNP issuing English passports and forbidding being out and about without one.

By the end of September... I wish.
I fully approve.
If it happens it will put pressure on those who should/could be vaccinated but aren't. Why should they be allowed to put others at risk.

So long as all our previous freedoms are eventually restored, of course.

V8

Why should they be fired or not permitted to partake in social events or travel? Vaccination is a unknown risk, for the large majority unvaccinated contraction presents a very very low risk that they might die, fractional percentage point. Covid is here to stay so will be repeatedly caught. Aggression expressed to certain groups (forced into being vaccinated) is likely to only see further aggression reciprocated, perhaps vanishing respect for the elderly who might be seen as having induced such, or those with vaccination passports being targets. At the extreme some unvaccinated with Covid may intentionally look to maximise the spread into the vulnerable groups, food preparers spitting into food/drinks about to be served, licking packages in supermarkets ..etc. in not having the freedom to do other activities with their time. Cars kill, but we don't ban driving. For the sake of a very small percentage of the population the large majority have had to pay over 100 million life years in lockdown. There's already large-scale identity theft/fraud so the Covid induced identity card/system pass-porting will have to be tightened much further - the start of a slide into a even deeper mire.

Incites discrimination, that could become ingrained whereby those of a certain age or physical ability may forever have concerns that the carer, person delivering/serving food/drinks to them ..etc. may bear a grudge against them.

1nvest wrote:
At the extreme some unvaccinated with Covid may intentionally look to maximise the spread into the vulnerable groups, food preparers spitting into food/drinks about to be served, licking packages in supermarkets ..etc. in not having the freedom to do other activities with their time.

Cars kill, but we don't ban driving.

For the sake of a very small percentage of the population the large majority have had to pay over 100 million life years in lockdown.

To be fair though, the time spent has clearly done wonders for some people's sense of imagination...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Anti-vaxxers are apparently planning for illegal raves come September in the absence of being permitted to enter nightclubs/bars - spontaneous street parties (bring your own booze) that apparently should be a riot. Exclusive late night shopping opportunities also anticipated.