July 20, 2021 - 11:42am
In his interview with UnHerd back in March of this year, former Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption upset many of his libertarian fans by coming out in favour of vaccine passports.
I do not like a world in which you have to produce a document in order to justify partaking in the ordinary activities of human existence any more than the next person. The trouble is that the alternative is even worse. I would prefer a system which was entirely voluntary and which trusted people, but given that I don’t think that is a politically feasible option, I think that we have got to choose the least bad thing. And to my mind a vaccine passport is a lot less bad than simply indiscriminately depriving everybody of what makes life worth living.
I think it’s inevitable, whatever government does, that private enterprises — for example theatre managers — will require some evidence of vaccination, because otherwise, people who are still afraid of being infected simply won’t come. I think it’s very unfortunate that that is how humanity behaves, but we’re not in a world where we can have the best solution. We’re in a world where we have to choose, because of the fears of so many people, between more or less bad options.
In his interview with Amol Rajan on the Today programme this morning, Lord Sumption seemed to suggest that he has now changed his mind. He was firmly opposed to the proposal to require vaccine passports for people attending nightclubs:
The latest statement on nightclubs is a threat that unless they insist on vaccine passports we will force them to do so. The age group affected by nightclubs has a negligible chance of getting seriously ill or dying – if they wish to take the risk then why should they not be allowed to do so? The groups it might affect have all been offered two jabs – they are highly effective against hospitalisations or deaths.
Getting vaccinated is a choice that one has, I don’t think this should be something we should be compelled to do.
UnHerd has invited the vaccines minister, Nadhim Zahawi, to an interview to discuss what prompted his change of heart in the other direction — and whether there’s any chance of another U-turn before the policy would actually come online. Watch this space.
Update: Lord Sumption has been in touch to explain his rationale in more detail:
Today, with c70% double vaccinated and 90% with antibodies, we are in a different position. Even on the logic of the control-freaks in charge, the case for vaccine passports is weak. The risk of transmitting infection remains but hospitalisations are low and deaths negligible. The problem is that the metric that ministers are using is infections, which don’t matter unless they lead to hospitalisation or death.
I would have no issue with venue operators voluntarily calling for proof of vaccination in order to attract more of the fearful, although there is little sign of that (theatres are reported to be selling to capacity). But none of that justifies the state in muscling in with legislation or crude threats.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt’s worth pointing out all the other stuff that has changed since Lord Sumption made his first argument in favour of vaccine passports, which were the best option at the time out of a range of unpalatable options.
What has changed since that time other than the vastly increased number of vaccinated people and the consequently vastly lower threat that the virus represents, is the now-obvious fact that large parts of the public sector, untrammelled by anything as inconvenient as the democratically elected government, have decided that the powers granted to themselves are not going to be handed back. It is against this dangerous development that Lord Sumption’s welcome reversion to libertarian principles must be judged.
Fair enough, except it is our elected government which is forcing through endless draconian measures, and avoiding the necessary scrutiny. Parliament has on the whole been appalling as well, what a difference from when many there were trying to block Brexit by any means possible!
Amen!!
If the government were so kind as to explain what vaccine passports are supposed to accomplish I might be more inclined to go along with it.
Now fewer and fewer non vaccinated are getting “infected”, so in what way are things going to get better by proving you vaccinated status?
“I might be more inclined to go along with it.”
Your inclinations are not an issue. If the gov stasi wanted you to have choice in this they would have asked you. You will do as told.
“so in what way are things going to get better by proving you vaccinated status?”
You think all this insane covid response it to make things better? It is to make things worse. That is how the economy may be wrecked so all must have dependence on gov money (Coming soon, CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency, when you will have all your money held, issued, and tracked by the Central Bank – and you will do as told, as you have no choice)) This plus the revoking of rights and freedoms is the Brave New World the covid response is done to create, it has nothing to do with health, or so it would seem, from how insane and anti-freedom, and distructive to the economy, education, jobs, freedon, mental and physical health it is.
Tedious conspiracy stuff. Why on Earth would Boris Johnson be doing anything like that, for all his limitations? Ah, he is a puppet, you see…..
Haven’t you heard? ‘Conspiracy theory’ has now been renamed to ‘spoiler alert’.
Totally agree with you.
Personally I think it’s time to cool it with regard to COVID vaccination. Those most at risk have largely been doubly vaccinated. Those at minimal risk (but interestingly at more risk of untoward side effects from the vaccine) should be allowed to make their own choice. After all, if one is vaxxed, why would one be bothered about the vaccination status of anybody else.
In some sense, the issue is similar to measles vaccination in children. There has always been a great push to enforce measles vaccination on the basis that a high level of vaccination in the child population is required to maintain herd immunity. That is certainly true. However, if child “a” is vaccinated against measles why would they or their parents care what the measles vaccination status was of child “b”. Sure child “b” is at risk of getting measles (a viral infection that is certainly unpleasant and can be fatal) but that’s a decision for the parents to make.
Also, the ONS has just published figures showing that 90% of UK adults now have covid antibodies.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveyantibodyandvaccinationdatafortheuk/21july2021
“The problem is that the metric that ministers are using is infections, which don’t matter unless they lead to hospitalisation or death.”
WRONG!!!!
See, antibiotic resistant bacteria evolve because people fail to take the entire dose, so a few survive, and those are the bacteria with greater genetic resistance to the antibiotic. These form a pool of ever increasing resistance till eventually an antibiotic resistant bacteria arises.
The mRNA vaccines are micro targeted at one protein on the ‘Spike Protein’. When people have the vaccine, AND are outliers who also get covid, the virus in them is being selected to be able to bypass this ONE line of defense. People with natural immunity have many kinds of antibody and defenses against different parts of the virus, wile the mRNA immunity is merely against a single protein – a tiny genetic change in the virus can alter this single facet resistance.
Therefore the more vaccinated people who get covid the more opportunity the virus has to form a mutation resistant to this single line of resistance the vaccine provides. More cases in vaccinated, more chance it will jump the shark.
Not that anything can be done in our current insane covid responce, but this is a great flaw in mRNA vaccines. Now if Ivermectin was given at the first positive as well, it would stop the virus in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated – and with that and some other multipronged attacks, instead of this ONE mRNA weapon, then the virus could be driven extinct.
But the Medical Industrial Complex forbids this Ivermectin from even being studied! (Check our Dr Campbell, the most popular covid youtuber – to see how well Ivermectin works, or Bret Weinstein… or a thousand others)
(See – if Ivermectin is shown to be a cure for covid then all the vaccines lose their emergency licence! The vaccines were licensed under emergency rules as NOTHING else worked. Well Ivermectin does, and if that was scientifically established then the license for the vaccines would have to be revoked! Cool, Catch-22) (No wonder big pharma forbids the study of ivermectin! Because it holds a gun to the head of their golden goose)
Thanks Dr, (or is it Professor?) Artzen for this explanation
‘Geert Vanden Bossche PhD, is an internationally recognised vaccine developer having worked as the head of the Vaccine Development Office at the German Centre for Infection Research. Coordinated Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation’s Ebola Vaccine Program and contributed to the implementation of an integrated vaccine work plan in collaboration with Global Health Partners (WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, CDC, UNICEF), regulators (FDA) and vaccine manufacturers to enable timely deployment or stockpiling of Ebola vaccine candidates.
Highlighting the principle of using a prophylactic vaccine in the midst of a pandemic. Likely to create more more viral variants in the process. Sharing his perspective on mass vaccination in COVID-19.’
Find Geert on his website: https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/
Constantly we are asked to consider other people and adjust our behaviour to reassure them. When what is really happening is that big pharma calls the tune, making enormous profits, with our government’s and the opposition’s collusion. Give me strength!
Even the idea of “attracting more of the fearful” is a bit odd, considering that in order to do so a whole bunch of the not-fearful would be excluded. We do seem to be doing a lot of pandering to the fearful.
So true!