Should we all have to carry a Covid vaccination passport in the future?

First topic message reminder :

I would be all for it.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I would be all for it.

Well I think it’s entirely wrong to make people have a vaccine agasint their will or to penalise for lack of one.

I dont think anyone should be forced to have any vaccine, be it for Covid or anything else.

However, if any virus continues to spread because some people refuse to be vaccinated, I think it's reasonable to exclude those people from certain occupations, travel, even leisure facilities.

A New York City waitress was fired from her job after she told her supervisors that she wanted to wait before she got the Covid-19 vaccine.

Bonnie Jacobson, of Brooklyn, said she was unexpectedly terminated from Red Hook Tavern on Monday, days after she expressed concern about how the vaccine affects fertility.

Jacobson said she and her husband had recently started trying to have a child, but their plans were put on hold after she lost her job in April due to the coronavirus pandemic.

After she began working at the tavern in August, she and her husband once again began planning for a child.

"I do support the vaccine. I'm not, as they say, an anti-vaxxer," Jacobson said in a phone interview on Wednesday, telling NBC News that she feels there is still a lack of research about how the vaccine affects pregnant women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that "the actual risks of mRNA vaccines to the pregnant person and her fetus are unknown because these vaccines have not been studied in pregnant women."


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-city-waitress-fired-after-not-getting-covid-19-n1258155

Maddog wrote:A New York City waitress was fired from her job after she told her supervisors that she wanted to wait before she got the Covid-19 vaccine.

Bonnie Jacobson, of Brooklyn, said she was unexpectedly terminated from Red Hook Tavern on Monday, days after she expressed concern about how the vaccine affects fertility.

Jacobson said she and her husband had recently started trying to have a child, but their plans were put on hold after she lost her job in April due to the coronavirus pandemic.

After she began working at the tavern in August, she and her husband once again began planning for a child.

"I do support the vaccine. I'm not, as they say, an anti-vaxxer," Jacobson said in a phone interview on Wednesday, telling NBC News that she feels there is still a lack of research about how the vaccine affects pregnant women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that "the actual risks of mRNA vaccines to the pregnant person and her fetus are unknown because these vaccines have not been studied in pregnant women."


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-city-waitress-fired-after-not-getting-covid-19-n1258155

I think that's harsh.
For a start she is trying to get pregnant and like you say, because not enough research has been carried out,  pregnant women are not encouraged to have the vaccine.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:A New York City waitress was fired from her job after she told her supervisors that she wanted to wait before she got the Covid-19 vaccine.

Bonnie Jacobson, of Brooklyn, said she was unexpectedly terminated from Red Hook Tavern on Monday, days after she expressed concern about how the vaccine affects fertility.

Jacobson said she and her husband had recently started trying to have a child, but their plans were put on hold after she lost her job in April due to the coronavirus pandemic.

After she began working at the tavern in August, she and her husband once again began planning for a child.

"I do support the vaccine. I'm not, as they say, an anti-vaxxer," Jacobson said in a phone interview on Wednesday, telling NBC News that she feels there is still a lack of research about how the vaccine affects pregnant women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that "the actual risks of mRNA vaccines to the pregnant person and her fetus are unknown because these vaccines have not been studied in pregnant women."


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-city-waitress-fired-after-not-getting-covid-19-n1258155

I think that's harsh.
For a start she is trying to get pregnant and like you say, because not enough research has been carried out,  pregnant women are not encouraged to have the vaccine.

Yeah, but it's an employers call I guess.

If they want food handlers vaccinated, I guess they have the right to demand that.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
I think that's harsh.
For a start she is trying to get pregnant and like you say, because not enough research has been carried out,  pregnant women are not encouraged to have the vaccine.

Yeah, but it's an employers call I guess.

If they want food handlers vaccinated, I guess they have the right to demand that.

For existing employees who have good reason not to be vaccinated at the present time, surely they could have found a position where she wasn't actually handling food.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yeah, but it's an employers call I guess.

If they want food handlers vaccinated, I guess they have the right to demand that.

For existing employees who have good reason not to be vaccinated at the present time, surely they could have found a position where she wasn't actually handling food.

Maybe, but this is the US and those girls pull down some good tips. That's why she was working there. There is no position in a restaurant that doesn't handle food, except hostess, and that's a job for a 16 year old kid, assuming they have one.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
For existing employees who have good reason not to be vaccinated at the present time, surely they could have found a position where she wasn't actually handling food.

Maybe, but this is the US and those girls pull down some good tips. That's why she was working there. There is no position in a restaurant that doesn't handle food, except hostess, and that's a job for a 16 year old kid, assuming they have one.

Ahhh, it's different here, receptionists and  bar staff dont handle food, and no one under 18 would be employed as a hostess.....not that many places have one, it's usually a maitre d.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Maybe, but this is the US and those girls pull down some good tips. That's why she was working there. There is no position in a restaurant that doesn't handle food, except hostess, and that's a job for a 16 year old kid, assuming they have one.

Ahhh, it's different here, receptionists and  bar staff dont handle food, and no one under 18 would be employed as a hostess.....not that many places have one, it's usually a maitre d.

Bar staff handles drinks though don't they?

This place is a tavern, so it probably doesn't have a hostess. Might have a doorman, but I've yet see a doorwoman, assuming she wanted that position, which would still probably pay less then waiting on drunk people.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Ahhh, it's different here, receptionists and  bar staff dont handle food, and no one under 18 would be employed as a hostess.....not that many places have one, it's usually a maitre d.

Bar staff handles drinks though don't they?

This place is a tavern, so it probably doesn't have a hostess. Might have a doorman, but I've yet see a doorwoman, assuming she wanted that position, which would still probably pay less then waiting on drunk people.  

Bar staff handle glasses and bottles.

We used to have places in town where there were doorwomen, started years ago in clubs (usually) working on the assumption that women were less likely to provoke trouble causers than male doormen.

I wouldn't have expected discrimination against the none vaccinated to have started so soon. Here we have only just got round to vaccinating the over 65's, and  not many waitresses are that old.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Bar staff handles drinks though don't they?

This place is a tavern, so it probably doesn't have a hostess. Might have a doorman, but I've yet see a doorwoman, assuming she wanted that position, which would still probably pay less then waiting on drunk people.  

Bar staff handle glasses and bottles.

We used to have places in town where there were doorwomen, started years ago in clubs (usually) working on the assumption that women were less likely to provoke trouble causers than male doormen.

I wouldn't have expected discrimination against the none vaccinated to have started so soon. Here we have only just got round to vaccinating the over 65's, and  not many waitresses are that old.

Yeah, we aren't vaccinating them yet either. But NY is doing it differently. Workers that interact with the public are ahead of, or equal to the 65-74 year olds. I think that's silly.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Bar staff handle glasses and bottles.

We used to have places in town where there were doorwomen, started years ago in clubs (usually) working on the assumption that women were less likely to provoke trouble causers than male doormen.

I wouldn't have expected discrimination against the none vaccinated to have started so soon. Here we have only just got round to vaccinating the over 65's, and  not many waitresses are that old.

Yeah, we aren't vaccinating them yet either. But NY is doing it differently. Workers that interact with the public are ahead of, or equal to the 65-74 year olds. I think that's silly.  

Different places seem to prioritise differently that's for sure.

My sons partner comes from Minnesota. Her parents  have had to enter a lottery and will be picked in order of their numbers or names being chosen.

It makes sense to inoculate first those who would otherwise contribute to spread. It's like knocking out large avenues for the disease.

Original Quill wrote:It makes sense to inoculate first those who would otherwise contribute to spread.  It's like knocking out large avenues for the disease.

It makes sense to protect those most likely to die from it, then work your way out.

But NY hasn't given a ahit about their older citizens since this all started.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It makes sense to inoculate first those who would otherwise contribute to spread.  It's like knocking out large avenues for the disease.

It makes sense to protect those most likely to die from it, then work your way out.  

It's a calculation, either way. But you save more lives, compounded, if you save the life of one who is preventing deaths.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It makes sense to protect those most likely to die from it, then work your way out.  

It's a calculation, either way.  But you save more lives, compounded, if you save the life of one who is preventing deaths.

So you would have done 75+ year olds after 25 year old Walmart workers?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:It makes sense to inoculate first those who would otherwise contribute to spread.  It's like knocking out large avenues for the disease.

It makes sense to protect those most likely to die from it, then work your way out.  

But NY hasn't given a ahit about their older citizens since this all started.  

I agree, start with the elderly, they are the ones most likely to die or take up hospital beds, obviously alongside the oldest, vaccinate the hospital staff and the caregivers.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's a calculation, either way.  But you save more lives, compounded, if you save the life of one who is preventing deaths.

So you would have done 75+ year olds after 25 year old Walmart workers?

Whatever saves the most lives.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So you would have done 75+ year olds after 25 year old Walmart workers?

Whatever saves the most lives.

Which would be?????

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Whatever saves the most lives.

Which would be?????

That's the kind of question that Public Health specialists consider. It usually takes an MD degree, and on top of that, a Masters or even a Doctorate in PH statistics. I'm not in that field, but I'm all for their studying the question.

Had the Republicans not disbanded the Pandemic Response Team, and defunded the CDC/NIH, perhaps these things would already be known.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Which would be?????

That's the kind of question that Public Health specialists consider.  It usually takes an MD degree, and on top of that, a Masters or even a Doctorate in PH statistics.  I'm not in that field, but I'm all for their studying the question.  

Had the Republicans not disbanded the Pandemic Response Team, and defunded the CDC/NIH, perhaps these things would already be known.

Do the Brits have public health specialists?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's the kind of question that Public Health specialists consider. It usually takes an MD degree, and on top of that, a Masters or even a Doctorate in PH statistics. I'm not in that field, but I'm all for their studying the question.

Had the Republicans not disbanded the Pandemic Response Team, and defunded the CDC/NIH, perhaps these things would already be known.

Do the Brits have public health specialists?

What does it matter? Infectious diseases don't heed borders. It's a challenge common to everyone.

The US is the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, and it should have led the charge against the coronavirus. Instead, under Trump and the Republicans, it cowered in the corner and whimpered.

The US had the apparatus in place in the CDC, the NIH and the Pandemic Response Team, all enhanced/established by the genius, Barrack Obama. When Ebola came along, Obama let only two individuals pass through the gates. That's effectiveness! Meanwhile, they were over in Africa stemming the tide at the sources, so that spread couldn’t start.

With deregulation, to get their few pitiful shekels, Republicans disassembled this magnificent machine, and scattered the pieces everywhere. They appointed a HHS Secretary (Price) who only cared about the Department’s private jet, to ferry his party on a never-ending holiday. So much for austerity.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do the Brits have public health specialists?

What does it matter?  Infectious diseases don't heed borders.  It's a challenge common to everyone.

The US is the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, and it should have led the charge against the coronavirus.  Instead, under Trump and the Republicans, it cowered in the corner and whimpered.

The US had the apparatus in place in the CDC, the NIH and the Pandemic Response Team, all enhanced/established by the genius, Barrack Obama.  When Ebola came along, Obama let only two individuals pass through the gates.  That's effectiveness!  Meanwhile, they were over in Africa stemming the tide at the sources, so that spread couldn’t start.

With deregulation, to get their few pitiful shekels, Republicans disassembled this magnificent machine, and scattered the pieces everywhere.  They appointed a HHS Secretary (Price) who only cared about the Department’s private jet, to ferry his party on a never-ending holiday.  So much for austerity.

Is that a yes or no?

We are doomed then, the rest of the worlds health authorities and disease control specialists are all running around their labs and in the field, like headless chickens with no idea what to do.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's the kind of question that Public Health specialists consider.  It usually takes an MD degree, and on top of that, a Masters or even a Doctorate in PH statistics.  I'm not in that field, but I'm all for their studying the question.  

Had the Republicans not disbanded the Pandemic Response Team, and defunded the CDC/NIH, perhaps these things would already be known.

Do the Brits have public health specialists?

Yes
The United Kingdom Public Health Register operates a voluntary register for specialists and practitioners working in public health. It upholds and assures the professional standards for competence required to work in this field.

UKPHR provides public protection by ensuring that only competent public health professionals are registered and that high standards of practice are maintained.
UKPHR:

registers health practitioners and public health specialists working in the UK
1,074 registrants on UKPHR register (as at January 2020)
met 11/11 Standards
five recommendations as part of review decision
first accredited on 3 April 2013 (this is its sixth annual review and covers 3 April 2019 to 3 April 2020)

And Britain was, until very recently, regarded as a leader in preparing for pandemics

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/may/01/uk-global-leader-pandemics-coronavirus-covid-19-crisis-britain

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-pandemic-preparedness/uk-pandemic-preparedness

Korben wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do the Brits have public health specialists?

Yes
The United Kingdom Public Health Register operates a voluntary register for specialists and practitioners working in public health. It upholds and assures the professional standards for competence required to work in this field.

UKPHR provides public protection by ensuring that only competent public health professionals are registered and that high standards of practice are maintained.
UKPHR:

   registers health practitioners and public health specialists working in the UK
   1,074 registrants on UKPHR register (as at January 2020)
   met 11/11 Standards
   five recommendations as part of review decision
   first accredited on 3 April 2013 (this is its sixth annual review and covers 3 April 2019 to 3 April 2020)

And those specialists recommended vaccinating older people before 25 year old store workers.

Maddog wrote:

Korben wrote:
Yes
The United Kingdom Public Health Register operates a voluntary register for specialists and practitioners working in public health. It upholds and assures the professional standards for competence required to work in this field.

UKPHR provides public protection by ensuring that only competent public health professionals are registered and that high standards of practice are maintained.
UKPHR:

   registers health practitioners and public health specialists working in the UK
   1,074 registrants on UKPHR register (as at January 2020)
   met 11/11 Standards
   five recommendations as part of review decision
   first accredited on 3 April 2013 (this is its sixth annual review and covers 3 April 2019 to 3 April 2020)

And those specialists recommended vaccinating older people before 25 year old store workers.  

sorry MD i dont know what there recommendations are

UK medicine regulator MHRA revealed the full list of who will get the vaccine first.

Care home residents and staff
NHS staff, frontline health and social care workers, and all of those aged 80 and over
All of those aged 75 and over.
All those aged 70 and over and those judged clinically extremely vulnerable individuals (not including pregnant women and those under 18)
All of those aged 65 and over
All individuals aged 16 to 64 with underlying health conditions
All of those aged 60 and over
All of those 55 years and over
All of those 50 years and over

Syl wrote:UK medicine regulator MHRA revealed the full list of who will get the vaccine first.

Care home residents and staff
NHS staff, frontline health and social care workers, and all of those aged 80 and over
All of those aged 75 and over.
All those aged 70 and over and those judged clinically extremely vulnerable individuals (not including pregnant women and those under 18)
All of those aged 65 and over
All individuals aged 16 to 64 with underlying health conditions
All of those aged 60 and over
All of those 55 years and over
All of those 50 years and over

Which is basically what Texas is doing.

New York is putting 34 year old bartenders nearer the front of the line than a 65 year old retiree.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:UK medicine regulator MHRA revealed the full list of who will get the vaccine first.

Care home residents and staff
NHS staff, frontline health and social care workers, and all of those aged 80 and over
All of those aged 75 and over.
All those aged 70 and over and those judged clinically extremely vulnerable individuals (not including pregnant women and those under 18)
All of those aged 65 and over
All individuals aged 16 to 64 with underlying health conditions
All of those aged 60 and over
All of those 55 years and over
All of those 50 years and over

Which is basically what Texas is doing.

New York is putting 34 year old bartenders nearer the front of the line than a 65 year old retiree.  

They are obviously prioritising the people dealing with the public rather than concentrating on age.

Odd that so many people assume once someone hits mid 60's all they do is  sit home in shawl and slippers.  Older people are still mixing in public.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Which is basically what Texas is doing.

New York is putting 34 year old bartenders nearer the front of the line than a 65 year old retiree.  

They are obviously prioritising the people dealing with the public rather than concentrating on age.

Odd that so many people assume once someone hits mid 60's all they do is  sit home in shawl and slippers.  Older people are still mixing in public.

There are three things to consider with a virus: 1) vulnerable people, due to some characteristic such as age or illness; and 2) spread, and the likelihood that a person will come into contact with many more people (usually because of occupation) and thereby potentially spread the disease; 3) and responders, who after all are there to keep people alive in the first place, and must therefore be kept alive themselves.

I leave it to the PH specialists, as to which get priority, in which situations. They are the specialists.

Cant argue with that Quill.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
They are obviously prioritising the people dealing with the public rather than concentrating on age.

Odd that so many people assume once someone hits mid 60's all they do is  sit home in shawl and slippers.  Older people are still mixing in public.

There are three things to consider with a virus: 1) vulnerable people, due to some characteristic such as age or illness; and 2) spread, and the likelihood that a person will come into contact with many more people (usually because of occupation) and thereby potentially spread the disease; 3) and responders, who after all are there to keep people alive in the first place, and must therefore be kept alive themselves.

I leave it to the PH specialists, as to which get priority, in which situations.  They are the specialists.

The PH specialists don't agree.

Now what?

Even most people in vulnerable groups who get this virus, don't have anything more than mild to moderate cold/flu symptoms...


I think this is all knee jerk over reaction that is fuelled by media hysteria.

Tommy Monk wrote:


Even most people in vulnerable groups who get this virus, don't have anything more than mild to moderate cold/flu symptoms...


I think this is all knee jerk over reaction that is fuelled by media hysteria.

Yes, you have mentioned that before.

Tell that to the 122 thousand people who have died of Covid in the UK and the two and a half million that have died globally.

That number is over inflated and the number of actual cases is hugely under estimated.

Tommy Monk wrote:

That number is over inflated and the number of actual cases is hugely under estimated.

Change the record Tommy.

You just do as you are told, wear your mask, social distance, and get the jab when you are called.

Yawn...

Tommy Monk wrote:


Yawn...

Ditto.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There are three things to consider with a virus: 1) vulnerable people, due to some characteristic such as age or illness; and 2) spread, and the likelihood that a person will come into contact with many more people (usually because of occupation) and thereby potentially spread the disease; 3) and responders, who after all are there to keep people alive in the first place, and must therefore be kept alive themselves.

I leave it to the PH specialists, as to which get priority, in which situations.  They are the specialists.

The PH specialists don't agree.  

Now what?

Every situation is different. Different situation = different answers. Let the experts handle it, according to the situation they are handed.