The Unintended Consequences of Vaccine Passports
On Sunday, Health Secretary Sajid Javid stated in a BBC interview: “I am pleased to say that we will not be going ahead with plans for vaccine passports.” However, Number 10 has since clarified that vaccine passports are still a “first-line defence” against a winter wave of COVID-19.
Whatever the Government’s true position – it seems to depend on exactly whom you’re talking to – introducing vaccine passports could have harmful unintended consequences, even aside from the threat they pose to civil liberties.
It’s now clear that, while the vaccines do provide strong protection against severe disease, their efficacy against infection is much more limited. In July, the Israeli Ministry of Health reported that the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness against infection had dropped to just 39%.
And an unpublished study by Qatari researchers found that the vaccine’s effectiveness against infection fell to zero after six months. (Though its effectiveness against severe, critical or fatal COVID-19 remained high for the study’s duration.)
The apparent decline in the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness may explain why Israel – which began vaccinating its citizens in late December – recently posted its largest daily total for the number of new infections since the pandemic began.
As many commentators have pointed out, the vaccines’ limited efficacy against infection rather undermines the case for vaccine passports. If vaccinated people are still capable of transmitting the virus, restricting attendance of large events to those who can show proof of vaccination is no guarantee of safety.
It would make more sense to create passports exclusively for those who’ve already been infected, since natural immunity seems to provide stronger protection against infection than the Pfizer vaccine. (I’m not seriously entertaining this proposal.)
The fact that vaccine passports wouldn’t have a large effect on spread isn’t the only problem. If implemented carelessly, they could actually lead to more COVID deaths.
How so? If vulnerable people (such as elderly persons for whom vaccines are less effective) are led to believe – wrongly – that the vaccines have strong efficacy against infection, they might take more risks than they otherwise would. For example, they might attend a large event, only to then become seriously ill with COVID-19.
Of course, the number of people in that category is likely to be small. But the hypothetical illustrates that vaccine passports aren’t simply a nuisance or a threat to civil liberties; they could even harm those they’re intended to help.
The small number of people still vulnerable to COVID-19 may need to continue taking precautions until more natural immunity is built up in the population. Vaccine passports will offer these people little protection in the meantime.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There are many EVIL creatures in our government, but take heart…
“…Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;
Their foot shall slip in due time;
For the day of their calamity is at hand,
And the things to come hasten upon them”. (Deuteronomy 32:35)
Oliver Cromwell said,”Put your Trust in The Lord, Boys… but keep your powder dry”
In other words, we must not sit back, WE must be ready to MAKE things happen.
Well, don’t stand on ceremony chap, lead on.
I am a firm believer in Karma.
Hell is assured for everyone not having stood up against discrimination, let alone for the collaborators and instigators.
The question is whether they will also experience dreadful fates whilst on Earth.
History shows that the wicked do not always get what they deserve on this earth.
But history itself does a good deal to make up for the deficit in earthly justice, by exposing the wicked for what they are.
That’s one thing we can help with – from now up to the end of our lives, if necessary.
“The fact that vaccine passports wouldn’t have a large effect on spread isn’t the only problem. If implemented carelessly, they could actually lead to more COVID deaths.”
of course. mainly by suppressing symptoms in people who work with the vulnerable
If anyone still needed to be tested, it’s the vaccinated.
We know that, they know that and most vaxxed at least have a hunch.
The Israeli Minister caught by the hot mic this week said what the vax passports were all about. COERCION.
It would be hilarious if they did flip to discriminating against the uninfected but that’s not going to ring the tills is it?
Even if they did offer the previously infected a free pass I won’t be taking up the offer. Why would I want to be part of and help introduce it???
In West Africa they get the lucky souls who have recovered from Ebola to work in the hospitals
the most dangerous people to work with the vulnerable are young people who are double vaccinated and haven’t had natural infection. asymptomatic superspreaders
“It’s now clear that, while the vaccines do provide strong protection against severe disease” It is not and never has been. Look at the hospitalisation figures in Israel, Iceland, Gibralter, Malta, Seychelles and the UK’s latest ONS figures for the fully vaccinated. The original Pfizer trial was to show efficacy towards MILD disease and the RRR vs ARR is a bone of contention. If there is an apparent trend, it’s a seasonal trend and yet we have an infection rate x100 of the same time last year. More testing? Maybe, but infections and hospitalisations per 100,000 of vaccinated and unvaccinated is equivalent, if not slightly worse in the vaccinated. Simply look at the Flu vaccine. North America is the biggest adopter of the seasonal flu jab, yet their deaths from seasonal flu are slightly greater than those countries with virtually zero take-up. We also know that taking annual flu jabs leaves you more suseptible to the wild virus, plus other complications that come from the flu jab. The annual flu jab has always been a case of the dog chasing its tail in attempting to determine what strain the coming season would express. The covid jab is no different except… Read more »
The problem I see with monitoring the flu jab performance, most of the statistics don’t take into account other factors like lifestyle improvements, other supplements and diet etc.
Indeed. And surely the reduced death rate must also be partly due to improvements in treatments since the first wave – eg. the use of dexamethasone, the realisation that ventilation was actually causing deaths, and better measures against cross contamination of other patients. Also it could be that the delta variant is simply less deadly than the alpha thanks to natural selection of less deadly, more spready variants. But the establishment are keen to give their experimental shots 100% of the credit.
The last I read about flu jabs is that they indeed do protect against flu somewhat, but that the “vaccinated” population does not get a lower rate of respiratory infections. You won’t get flu, you will get something else.
I suspect the immune system is in a sense a zero sum game – when its resources are (artificially) focussed on fighting one pathogen, all other pathogens get slightly better chances. Such parsimony would make sense from an evolutionary perspective as organisms do not tend to waste any resources on protecting from threats that do not occur in their environment.
jabbing 12-15 year olds
“The assessment released by the CMOs suggests it may stop 30,000 infections between October and March in England.”
1 average day’s worth of infections prevented by a novel vaccine program with no long term safety data aimed at children. a low point in our country’s history
And note : “infections” – which are illusory PCR results..
in this case they are modelled infections
And don’t forget the weasel word ‘may’! They may stop 30,000 infections!
May, might, could… Keep everyone on their toes
“Low Point”? I think you’re being overly polite.
“It’s now clear that, while the vaccines do provide strong protection against severe disease”
Is it?
its hard to tell
new vaccines, new strain, different season, built up natural immunity
cases are close to the peak and deaths are low but it is hard to extract the cause and PHE doesn’t do a good job of it
Exactly, there’s nothing I can see anywhere that provides proof that these shots are doing anything
There are some correlations.
And our modern day totally corrupted, biased and politicized ‘the science’ mistakenly and most deliberately also considers them causations.
Correlation does not equal causation. That’s one of the most elementary scientific facts.
Yeah, of course there are and that’s the point. This article is about the introduction of vaccine passports. To make the case for them, we would expect to see some extraordinary proof. There isn’t any.
An essential point – the stronger the side effects, the greater the proven benefits have to be (cf. medication for cancer)
Like vaccinating kids, when there’s little proven benefit.
Exactly.
But only when it shows what they want it to – if there’s a correlation the other way it will always be dismissed as a coincidence!
Is it really plausible that they knew this and tried to hide it in the annual January peak of mortality by starting “vaccinating” the most vulnerable in December?
The most noticeable correlation that I’ve noticed is between jabbing and a rise in immediate mortality coupled with a slower fall.
I’m sick of this site peddling this bullshit, where is the proof that the jabs reduce serious illness and death? The stats point to far more double jabbed people dying with/of covid. Stop it Toby please, you sound like JHB FFS. We’ve had far more deaths last month and this month than we had at the same time last year when there was no jab whatsoever.
No. And they are not vaccines given the 1.2% efficacy wears off after a few months – oh yeah- they also kill and maim more people than any product ever released other than a dedicated weapon.
Deaths September 7th 2020: 15
Tests September 7th 2020: 201,695
Cases September 7th 2020: 3859
Deaths September 7th 2021: 113
Tests September 6th (no 7th data ) 2021: 1,346,631
Cases September 7th 2021: 37891
Is there anyone, anywhere who can explain to a layman how the vaccines have any effect whatsoever?
Exactly, where is the evidence for the statement that this site makes on the effectiveness of these jabs. I can’t see any, it certainly isn’t in the government data.
This is perhaps more interesting:
Approximate global deaths for the week ending 13th September 2020: 40,300.
Approximate global deaths for the week ending 12th September 2021: 62,492.
As you imply, little evidence of benefit. And if the all cause deaths of vaccinated compared to unvaccinated in the UK are not being given as well, this there is a lot of cause for concern.
It is clear, from these figures that they DO have an effect and that effect is harmful.
Don’t give them ideas! An “immunity” passport is equally as abhorrent.
not allowed out of your house until you’ve had covid – lol
Indeed, the goal is to get us complying with a system, any system, where we habitually beg the State for permission to carry out normal human activities.
The moment you present your social credit score app, to anyone, anywhere, for any reason, you are a slave.
“A slave asks ‘Is it legal?.
A free person asks ‘Is it right?.”
Us free people here know that vaxx mandates, vaxx passports and ANY discrimination is simply NOT RIGHT!
This is a valid but unnecessary hypothetical argument.
There’s no need to indulge in whatifaboutery: the core point is that Our Vaccines offer essentially no protection against infection or transmission. This illustrates that vaxports have nothing to do with infection or transmission.
If you want to add anything on top of that, simply note that we can self-certify as being “unable” to get vaccination, while still being given a big green tick on our vaxport.
They are a declaration of compliance, not immunity.
Do you trust them not to come after those who self-certify though? I certainly don’t – with the usual mission creep, it seems likely that ‘self-certification’ would evolve into ‘need a doctor’s not by X date’ if they think they can get away with it.
Does it provide strong protection against severe disease? I’m not sure we can definitively say that. Jury is still out.
if you want to have some fun with data – go to https://www.worldometers.info and try this:
1: Pick a country. Ideally in the developing world where the data isn’t polluted by endemic Covid and lockdown harms. But any country will do.
2: Establish the date their vaccine programme started.
3: See what happened next to cases and deaths.
Here’s a starter for you. Mongolia. If you look closely you can just about make out some variance in the data that starts immediately after the vaccine programme began at the end of February.
A very similar trend is also evident in Thailand as covered by UK Column News yesterday.
UK Column News – 13th September 2021 | UKColumn
I can’t locate it at the moment, but there is an image that shows the same pattern across a wide range of countries following implementation of the jabs.
Yes this I know ‘cos i live here.
Up until December 2020 the TOTAL death rate from covid was less than the DAILY death toll on the roads.
Then TPTB started with the ‘vaccines’ more recently 3rd shots of the AZ. Now look at the state of the country.
As ever it is the poorest of society that are shouldering the costs both economic and health wise.
Bloody sad.
But there are many, many expats here who are all for these jabs and won’t even consider looking at the data.
Just checked Burundi still on 38 deaths and NO VACCINES.
It is clear the malevolent TPTB were totally focused on using the virus as a means of controlling the people in order to bring in the NWO. Prophylactics cheap and readily available were demonised in favour of a rushed untried genetic therapy that goodness knows what long term harms will be caused. I do not believe for one minute those people pushing this Agenda have taken the clotshot. This winter will be the testing ground for how well the vaxxinateds’ immune systems have been harmed.
This is more the sort of stuff for this site. It might not be an ideal approach (it’s certainly NOT ‘clear’ that the jabs prevent severe disease or death; and ‘not entertaining’ the idea that natural immunity gives stronger protection than Fizzer’s gmo gunk, what?) but at least it begins by setting out why this approach, which seems a certainty for the clown and his circus of fools to go down within a matter of weeks, is entirely the wrong one.
It’s at least better than the regurgitated msm we’ve had to swallow here lately.
I could have put it much more succinctly, though: your gmo gunk doesn’t stop people getting it, doesn’t stop them passing it on; and doesn’t stop ill people dying with it.
“It’s now clear that, while the vaccines do provide strong protection against severe disease”
Nope. Perhaps some risk reduction. But it’s not ‘strong’ or significant, since the absolute likelihood is so low to start with, and what is identified as assumed ‘vaccine’ effect is conflated with the evolution of the virus and its seasonality.
This confusion is, of course, a direct result of abandoning proper testing.
‘It’s now clear that, while the vaccines do provide strong protection against severe disease’.
Is it clear they do that?
No. but he has to say that or the site will be gone.
So vaccine passports are a “first line of defence”? If there were a horde of zombies blocking your path and some nutter came up and offered you an invisibility cloak that they claimed would allow to walk safely past, would you trust them? If the government proposed a scheme where a piece of paper / app that proved YOUR vaccination status would keep OTHERS safe from disease, would you trust them? About as far as I can throw them, since the estimated efficacy against infection and transmission of the vaccines are on a continual downward trend! Natural immunity is stronger and more adaptable than vaccine-induced immunity, so if they really must do something, why not suggest a passport showing evidence of antibodies / T-cells etc? With such an incredibly successful uptake of the Covid vaccines, surely most people are already safe from severe consequences of infection (if not from infection itself), so anybody vulnerable who is double jabbed is protected from others. This is an argument for both ditching the idea of vax passports and for personal choice when it comes to getting vaccinated. This will lead to a completely unsustainable and farcical scenario where only those who are fully… Read more »
““There’s absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the vaccines can impact on fertility,” he says.”
although it hasn’t been long and we will know for sure in a few years. problem with long term effects is that you need to study them over the long term – which we didn’t do because we were in a hurry to vaccinate children against something with zero risk. good for Pfizer profits though
There’s certianly lots of evidence of it messing with women’s periods. So something is going on in there that shouldn’t be.
And mens erectile function.
There’s absolutely no evidence for anything we don’t look for.
I think there needs to be just as many discussions about both the INTENDED consequences of vaccine passports – to increase the uptake of the vaccine (which Israeli officials admitted on a recent event in a hot mic moment), plus the DELIBERATELY secret mission of the vaccine passport plan – to introduce a CCP_style social credit system via the back door.
Note that IMHO Javid is playing the ‘good cop’ on this one (bad cop on others like vaccinating kids) against that vaccines minister’s ‘bad cop’. I think they BOTH want them to go ahead.
I never normally watch BBC news live but I did this morning
Covid
Covid
Covid
Hospitals already overwhelmed
Covid
Face masks
Lockdowns
Covid
Anti-vaxxers
Covid
Prince Andrew
Why does anybody bother watching the BBC anymore? It mystifies me. Do people have some morbid fascination with hysterical reporting? I suppose I have found myself in the middle of watching some gory horror flick, asking myself “why am I still watching this?!”. BBC viewers should ask themselves the same thing.
Unintended(?) consequences: a police state and endless injections. One last push!
Noah Carl states: “It’s now clear that, while the vaccines do provide strong protection against severe disease, their efficacy against infection is much more limited.” This assertion so blithely trotted out by Mr Carl is replicated everywhere within the political and media establishments, but is it correct? According to the government’s Covid Dashboard some 871 people died of/with Covid between Sep 3 to Sep 9 2021 but only 71 died over the same period last year. It need hardly be said vaccines were not around last year, so why this inexplicable ten-fold increase in Covid deaths in the year of the vaccine? Furthermore, the drug companies initial trials were unable to tell whether the vaccines prevented serious illness and death, for the simple reason that no one got terribly ill from either of the vaccinated group or the unvaccinated control group. I suggest ADE is responsible for the ten-fold increase in recent deaths. I am inclined to believe this is so because there is a current media blackout about both this astonishing rise in deaths and the fact that hospitals are incredibly busy at the moment. Busy with what one wonders? We know the answer to that – ADE victims… Read more »
and just imagine if they eliminate the unvaccinated data set. You’ll never be able to prove whether hospitalizations are down to ADE or the actual virus. Gives them total power in justifying constant boosters.
Spot on.
And, it does seem odd that “covid” hasn’t really gone away during summer as every upper respiratory infection tends to do.
But mass vaccination is not responsible they will say.
The vaxed are the spreaders due to the non sterilising gene therapies which also adversely affect their immune systems.
The science is there to prove the above.
We need to ensure we have as big an unvaxed control group as possible so that even the sheep see through the lies.
Hold the line.
The falsehood is that there is any unusual danger abroad. Even at worst, there never was any such that could not have been dealt with by the normal methods of care and self-isolation when symptomatic.
What might have made a real difference would have been much more focus on early prophylaxis and effective treatment – undistorted by the desire to sell snake oil.
Why do these highschool level falsehoods have to be repeated ad nauseam? Vaccination doesn’t and cannot protect against infection. Statistics suggesting the contrary are meaningless correlations. And I’d be very much surprised if this particular bit of idiocy wasn’t invented by the same people who redefined case as detectable infection within the last 3 months and who are really want Nothing but eradication is good enough!, ie Zero COVID.
Vaccination may prevent transmission if the immune response generated by it is effective enough to eliminate the infection before so much viral replication has occurred that host starts to shed viruses in meaningful numbers. That’s something the current batch of Corona vaccines don’t do and were never meant to provide.
Restrictive, discriminatory measures that infringe on natural rights have traditionally been tolerated by the courts only if they are deemed to be reasonable and proportionate to the desired end. In emergency, when full evaluation of the measures is not feasible, the courts defer to Government judgement.
While we may still technically be in a state of emergency, we are no longer in a state of crisis and extreme pressure to act quickly, vaccine passports have been under consideration for over a year already.
The information is in to assess the potential efficacy of the proposed vaccine passports. Since the vaccines do not prevent infection and transmission, the purported desired end to be achieved with them, prevention of transmission in access controlled venues, is impossible.
Since the desired end is impossible, vaccine passports will be ineffective in achieving it.
Since as an objective fact vaccine passports would be ineffective in achieving the desired end, the courts would be obliged to deem that their infringements on natural rights are neither reasonable nor proportionate and any requirement for them should be struck down by any honest judge.
Nice thought but I’m afraid the judiciary may well have been nobbled.
Appears that way.
First you’d have to find an honest judge. Not many of them left.
1/2
https://twitter.com/Henrik_Palmgren/status/1432049463170715648
So looks as if Boris is pausing the vaccine passport just long enough so that he can implement the global WHO instructed vaccine passport
2/2
Just like a narcissist, the government keep changing their minds. Its all part of the plan, put the pressure on then take it off…then put it on again.
It creates imbalance…its cruel and evil
Natural immunity is best. End of. The reduction in in hospitalisations etc is probably due to natural immunity rather than a fake version of it.
Think about it, if this is Soooo infectious and so many up till now have been a positive case then the amount of people with natural immunity is quite high.
They’ve basically just postponed their introduction on the condition that we are ‘sensible’. Therefore when figuresinevitably increase into winter, they will bring them in and blame the public for it. Exactly what a prison governor would do.
The next measures will then be aimed at the unvaccinated.
The continuous flip flopping of all governments is intentional to confuse people. Turn off all msm, radio, tv, newspapers. They serve no purpose other than spreading nonsense.
So…my thought is the digital passport relies on use of a smart phone presumably? Given only 50% of the world’s population has a smart phone, is this passport further divisive between nation states? I’ve just bought a Nokia 225 4G “dumb phone” for when I’m out and about. I’m probably now disenfranchised or discriminated against not based on vaccine status but technological updatedness?