J Corbyn and Iain Duncan Smith...

[ladymuck]

It's fundamentally right because those who choose to refuse vaccine can't expect to put others at risk, shame about those who can't get it for medical reasons but tough - being able to go to pub isn't exactly a human right.

It's not solely about pubs though, it's about dividing people by another arbitrary rule and no-one can answer why one type of establishment/venue/business must use passports and another doesn't. There's risk at the supermarket, the post office, the newsagents, bakers, butchers, pharmacy, etc etc.

I've yet to hear a cogent argument from anyone in favour of this measure that makes sense.

[ladymuck]

Many businesses might not last that long, they need revenues right now, what's the problem of having to wait a few months before being able to visit pubs which will be far safer due to vaccine requirement?

But if pubs are so inherently unsafe and dangerous, they should be kept closed. You can't have it both ways.

[AtW]

It's not solely about pubs though, it's about dividing people by another arbitrary rule

It's not arbitrary, it's based on science and 150k dead in this country in the last 12 months, plus - that's also important: closed businesses are on their last legs and getting them open safely is very important for the economy.

[AtW]

But if pubs are so inherently unsafe and dangerous, they should be kept closed. You can't have it both ways.

Black and white stuff is for kids and idiots, there is a big grey area and it would be stupid to close pubs when it's possible to make them pretty safe on a condition that vaccination is required: it reduces risks massively, not to zero, but then if the economy is closed taxes on those who still work will have to go up pretty ******* high.

[malvolio]

It's not solely about pubs though, it's about dividing people by another arbitrary rule and no-one can answer why one type of establishment/venue/business must use passports and another doesn't. There's risk at the supermarket, the post office, the newsagents, bakers, butchers, pharmacy, etc etc.

I've yet to hear a cogent argument from anyone in favour of this measure that makes sense.

Nor have I. But claiming that it discriminates against certain people is not it. Your example is far closer in fact.

[ladymuck]

Black and white stuff is for kids and idiots, there is a big grey area and it would be stupid to close pubs when it's possible to make them pretty safe on a condition that vaccination is required: it reduces risks massively, not to zero, but then if the economy is closed taxes on those who still work will have to go up pretty ******* high.

That's the sort of reasoning that comes from a belief that the vaccine is 100% perfect in all people. It isn't.


Thank you for calling me an idiot and displaying your level of reasoning by resorting to personal insults.

[ladymuck]

Nor have I. But claiming that it discriminates against certain people is not it. Your example is far closer in fact.

I'm interested in why you say allowing/preventing participation in an activity based on their vaccine status is not discriminatory.

[AtW]

That's the sort of reasoning that comes from a belief that the vaccine is 100% perfect in all people. It isn't.

It isn't, obviously, but if vaccine stops 90% of infections and everybody in a small place is vaccinated then even if one of the vaccinated people got spreadable Covid then just based on simple probabilities it would be far harder to spread it to many people, which is the key problem here - keeping R below 1.

So with some social distancing still present in a pub (like last year) it seems to me that exponential transmissions can be avoided AND lots of people on hospitality can get their jobs back.

Seem pretty ******* reasonable to me - especially after 150k dead in the last 12 months.

[AtW]

And how would you beat vaccine hesitancy if not having vaccinated will seem like getting same result (other people will do it!)?

With highly spreadable variants it seems more than 60% vaccination level will be necessary, how would you achieve that - with words from Magna Carta?

[malvolio]

I'm interested in why you say allowing/preventing participation in an activity based on their vaccine status is not discriminatory.

Discrimination is "prejudicial and unjust" separation of a group. Preventing the spread of a disease or any other factor impacting the population as a whole is not unjust or prejudicial.

If there is is discrimination in the proposal it is in favour of some commercial interests, mostly in entertainment. It is not against people.