Vaccine passports to enter the ground?

[Pingu the Penguin]

The testing thing is a red herring if it works like the Euros did. Do a LFT at home and self report the result. Very open to fixing the result I would think

more broadly, a combination of the very high levels of protection against hospitalisation and death from Covid offered by the vaccine, the very high numbers of the adult population vaccinated, and the fact that the age profile of those not vaccinated meaning they are at much less risk (significantly so) of hospitalisation and death suggests to me that this is disproportionate.

I can totally understand people wanting to avoid crowds, etc, but if they wish to do so then that probably means giving grounds the swerve. Life has to get back to some form of normality soon or else the economy will be permanently damaged which will impact the health of the entire population (not least those most at risk of Covid - in fact, it will probably hit them even harder)

 

[ctwrd]

Any available social distancing can only help restrict the spread of the virus, so yes. I’d advocate not crushing yourself on the concourses too.

Any available social distancing no matter whether it actually results in reduced social distancing. Dear me.

 

[ctwrd]

The testing thing is a red herring if it works like the Euros did. Do a LFT at home and self report the result. Very open to fixing the result I would think

more broadly, a combination of the very high levels of protection against hospitalisation and death from Covid offered by the vaccine, the very high numbers of the adult population vaccinated, and the fact that the age profile of those not vaccinated meaning they are at much less risk (significantly so) of hospitalisation and death suggests to me that this is disproportionate.

I can totally understand people wanting to avoid crowds, etc, but if they wish to do so then that probably means giving grounds the swerve. Life has to get back to some form of normality soon or else the economy will be permanently damaged which will impact the health of the entire population (not least those most at risk of Covid - in fact, it will probably hit them even harder)

Exactly. Anyone frightened would be better of staying at home.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Any available social distancing no matter whether it actually results in reduced social distancing. Dear me.

Hence my comment about hoping you weren’t a health and safety officer.

You don’t seem to be aware of either.

 

[manclad]

You'll find toilets far easier to negotiate if you stand facing the porcelain :)

Or as we used to say - "point Percy at the porcelain"!!

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Exactly. Anyone frightened would be better of staying at home.

I’m not sure I agree with the term frightened. It’s a case of how geared up people are in terms of assessing risk. Even then, you have some people who are more risk averse than others.

 

[Manchester33]

As someone who has had my first vaccine, and will have my second next month, I think this is absolute rubbish.
The vaccine reduces the risk of catching COVID, but it doesn’t eliminate that risk. What is the point of this? It won’t stop people with Covid entering the stadium.
How will it work with children who aren’t offered the vaccine?

 

[ctwrd]

Hence my comment about hoping you weren’t a health and safety officer.

You don’t seem to be aware of either.

The job of anyone coming up with rules for people to follow to aid social distancing surely has to make sure those rules aid distancing not make them worse.
It’s not as straightforward as saying the more restrictive we are the better as proven by the ludicrous one way rule I cited which was dropped by all eventually.
Not sure what you’re taking issue with.

if they come up with procedures whereby it takes longer to get into the ground it would actually result in people being congregated together for longer than if it was left up to people to arrive naturally. Longer contact = more risk.

they may sell more rip off food and drink however.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The job of anyone coming up with rules for people to follow to aid social distancing surely has to make sure those rules aid distancing not make them worse.
It’s not as straightforward as saying the more restrictive we are the better as proven by the ludicrous one way rule I cited which was dropped by all eventually.
Not sure what you’re taking issue with.

if they come up with procedures whereby it takes longer to get into the ground it would actually result in people being congregated together for longer than if it was left up to people to arrive naturally. Longer contact = more risk.

they may sell more rip off food and drink however.

How restrictive is standing slightly further away from someone in a queue?

 

[Barcon]

The vaccinated are accounting for a majority of hospitalisations - 60% double jabbed and likely a further 20% single dosed, as of last week - and that’s at the peak of summer; exclusively allowing the trialists in to the stadium based on nothing beyond a their vaccine status is incredibly naive, especially if/when those figures are mirrored and accentuated in the winter flu season.

Football grounds are probably going to be locked down again anyway by November, so all this propaganda is simply to entice the reluctant into getting it.

Let's hope it works.

 

[Jesus2020]

I tend to look at it the other way round. No one is beating anyone with a stick and keeping them out of the ground.

There’s an ongoing pandemic at the moment, with a vaccine available that significantly reduces the risk of you contracting and spreading the virus. It currently isn’t compulsory to be vaccinated.

If you choose not to be vaccinated, then that comes with consequences and limits your access to crowded entertainment in an attempt to stop the virus from spreading again.

The ball is in the court of the undecided/anti vax person. Get the jab and watch some football. Don’t and watch it on TV/do a LFT for each game.

Which would be coercion through social exclusion when worded like that. Especially when a lot of people are wary of what they are putting into their bodies. It's not like we have a viable source of education of information on anything thesedays that we can trust.

But, I also can't argue with the science if it's genuinely going to significantly reduced the likelihood of it spreading.

So why stop there? What about the London underground? The workplace? It seems they've vaccinated the elderly and now they're considering excluding people from social activities like football and clubs in order to push them into also getting the vaccine after spending the last year or so telling them they aren't at risk from it.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Which would be coercion through social exclusion when worded like that. Especially when a lot of people are wary of what they are putting into their bodies. It's not like we have a viable source of education of information on anything thesedays that we can trust.

But, I also can't argue with the science if it's genuinely going to significantly reduced the likelihood of it spreading.

So why stop there? What about the London underground? The workplace? It seems they've vaccinated the elderly and now they're considering excluding people from social activities like football and clubs in order to push them into also getting the vaccine after spending the last year or so telling them they aren't at risk from it.

Public transport is necessary. Going to a match isn’t.

Having a severe reaction to this vaccine is statistically less likely than you getting run over the next time you cross the road.

There are lots of sources of information. People question them because sometimes they draw conclusions they don’t like nor want to hear.

I hope we echo what France have done and make social lepers out of the voluntary unvaccinated.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Public transport is necessary. Going to a match isn’t.

Having a severe reaction to this vaccine is statistically less likely than you getting run over the next time you cross the road.

There are lots of sources of information. People question them because sometimes they draw conclusions they don’t like nor want to hear.

I hope we echo what France have done and make social lepers out of the voluntary unvaccinated.

I don’t get this logic at all. You don’t persuade and convince by calling people lepers.

besides the cold hard numbers and assumptions based around these I don’t think we understand vaccine hesitancy. Would be keen to do that before we shun people

(double jabbed, fully supportive of vaccines here btw, FAOD)

 

[Jesus2020]

Public transport is necessary. Going to a match isn’t.

Having a severe reaction to this vaccine is statistically less likely than you getting run over the next time you cross the road.

There are lots of sources of information. People question them because sometimes they draw conclusions they don’t like nor want to hear.

I hope we echo what France have done and make social lepers out of the voluntary unvaccinated.

That's true.

Using that logic you could say the risk assessment involved in crossing the road added to the years of data collected from people crossing roads and how to avoid being ran over, plus how necessary it is to cross a road means people then choose to do so, knowing the risks, much more educated than we currently are about the possible long or short term risks of this vaccine.

There's too much imo. And [in trying my best not to sound paranoid] who do you trust; a government with a track record of lying to us, any government infact, who often give information based on what leads to the best possible outcome for someome to make a profit. The media? How often have they lied to us? Blue ticks on twitter with paymasters telling them what to say? Journalists.

Or the science. The trusted sources. But these are less easy to come by.

That would be like a step in a direction I'm not comfortable with and only fuels suspicions of this being the desired outcome all along. I'd rather be educated and others to also be.

I'm still undecided, like I said, but it's because I crave more information (maybe it's there and I haven't seen it?) but I want to see it. I want whatever is the safest for us all but I wouldn't want us to start calling people the unvaccinated, selfish, banning people, creating social division just because someone might have a genuine fear of being vaccinated then re labeling this as pure selfishness.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That's true.

Using that logic you could say the risk assessment involved in crossing the road added to the years of data collected from people crossing roads and how to avoid being ran over, plus how necessary it is to cross a road means people then choose to do so, knowing the risks, much more educated than we currently are about the possible long or short term risks of this vaccine.

There's too much imo. And [in trying my best not to sound paranoid] who do you trust; a government with a track record of lying to us, any government infact, who often give information based on what leads to the best possible outcome for someome to make a profit. The media? How often have they lied to us? Blue ticks on twitter with paymasters telling them what to say? Journalists.

Or the science. The trusted sources. But these are less easy to come by.

That would be like a step in a direction I'm not comfortable with and only fuels suspicions of this being the desired outcome all along. I'd rather be educated and others to also be.

I'm still undecided, like I said, but it's because I crave more information (maybe it's there and I haven't seen it?) but I want to see it. I want whatever is the safest for us all but I wouldn't want us to start calling people the unvaccinated, selfish, banning people, creating social division just because someone might have a genuine fear of being vaccinated then re labeling this as pure selfishness.

The only person that can make your call is you.
The information is out there.

Do you ever think of switching beers? Do you check what’s in them before decideping?

Ever had a donner kebab? Did you check the ingredients?

Did you check the ingredients of all other vaccines you’ve had, or did you assume the doctors know what they are doing?

There are lots of shouty people out there trying to shape the rhetoric that the vaccine isn’t safe.

All countries are advising their citizens to take the vaccine when available. It’s safe.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I don’t get this logic at all. You don’t persuade and convince by calling people lepers.

besides the cold hard numbers and assumptions based around these I don’t think we understand vaccine hesitancy. Would be keen to do that before we shun people

(double jabbed, fully supportive of vaccines here btw, FAOD)

You don’t call them anything. You don’t judge them. They just can’t go to restaurants etc until they have the vaccine.

 

[Jesus2020]

The only person that can make your call is you.
The information is out there.

Do you ever think of switching beers? Do you check what’s in them before decideping?

Ever had a donner kebab? Did you check the ingredients?

Did you check the ingredients of all other vaccines you’ve had, or did you assume the doctors know what they are doing?

There are lots of shouty people out there trying to shape the rhetoric that the vaccine isn’t safe.

All countries are advising their citizens to take the vaccine when available. It’s safe.

We already know the long term risks of all of those though. Then we can choose to still put them in our bodies, aware of the risks, because these have been around for a long time.

Without turning this into a debate on vaccines as opposed to vaccine passports for football we don't with this vaccine. We do with others, such as the jabs we need to visit Africa, and most young people would probably have these jabs yet for some reason a lot of them are still reluctant to have this new one.

Education based on facts is the way forward. Not labeling them as selfish and banning them from things in order to back them into a position of weakness.

Is it though?

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

You don’t call them anything. You don’t judge them. They just can’t go to restaurants etc until they have the vaccine.

But this makes no sense. Presumably your stance is to protect others? But vaccinated people still transmit. The benefit of vaccination (unlike masks, social distancing, lock down, etc) is largely personal

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

But this makes no sense. Presumably your stance is to protect others? But vaccinated people still transmit. The benefit of vaccination (unlike masks, social distancing, lock down, etc) is largely personal

The vaccine reduces the likelihood of you getting it and passing it on by around 75%.

 

[Jesus2020]

The vaccine reduces the likelihood of you getting it and passing it on by around 75%.

Do you have any sources for this? (I'm genuinely interested I'm not just being a knob to try and win some pointless points winning exercise with someone I've never met and probably never will)