by UnHerd
Thursday, 18
March 2021
Video
16:10

Debate: are vaccine passports necessary?

Kirsty Innes of the Tony Blair Institute and Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch offer their arguments
by UnHerd


Are vaccine passports the fastest way back to normality or do they bring us a step closer towards a dystopian checkpoint state?

On today’s LockdownTV, Freddie Sayers heard from both sides of the debate. Making the case for vaccine passports was Kirsty Innes, Head of Digital Government for the Tony Blair Institute, whose recent paper called for the implementation of what she called ‘digital health passports’. Innes argues that, by using a QR code on people’s phones that shows a tick or cross indicator, passports would make it easier to “manage the risk” of the virus in certain settings (pubs, stadiums, care homes etc).

This, according to Silkie Carlo, Director of Big Brother Watch, a civil liberties group, is “alarming”. She warned that this kind of discrimination between the vaccinated and unvaccinated would lead to a “segregated surveillance society” that takes a big step towards mandatory vaccines. Given that Britain has administered 25 million doses, mostly to its vulnerable population, that should be a reason to liberalise — not clamp down on — society.

So is testing a possible solution? Carlo argued that the example of mass testing in schools serves as a cautionary example. Infection rates are low and there is a 0.1% false positive rate with the lateral tests being used, which means that some schoolchildren are being unfairly excluded.

Innes insisted that her plan would be to integrate testing status with the health pass so that everybody can use them. In other words, if someone did not want to take a vaccine, they could get tested before going to an event or establishment to prove that they did not have the virus. This may be expensive, but Innes stressed that tests are going to be a feature of our lifetime and will only get cheaper and more accurate. Ultimately, it is a price we have to pay for lifting restrictions and getting out of lockdown.

The concept that vaccine passports were a “route out of” lockdown is a false one, said Carlo. It is the “narrative of authoritarianism” in which people are presented with a choice of living under house arrest or living on tag. She argued that this “authoritarian dream where the population are treated like cattle” is driven by ideological and commercial reasons. Under the guise of biometrics, companies try to sell ‘silver-bullet solutions’ that trick people into believing that more surveillance will make their lives easier, much like vaccine passports.

In spite of Innes’s claim that the passports would be temporary and regulated, Carlo pointed out that, if we have learnt anything from the 9/11 years, it should be to not make extreme and reactive policies that change the way that we live.

Carlo also argued that vaccine passports will have a negative psychological impact on the population too: if the passports are seen as a kind of freedom pass to live safely, that, if taken away, would be a major source of anxiety for the population.

“Having a tool available and putting it to use are two separate things” said Innes. Britain is a parliamentary democracy with strong liberal values and we as a society would not allow Government abuse these emergency measures. And as for daily life, Innes says that it won’t feel like anything more than a contactless payment and would only be restricted to certain environments.

But to Carlo’s mind, the passports’ seemingly innocent beginnings in certain environments would inevitably spill into other environments. In turn, this “health surveillance theatre ” would create a ratcheting effect across society.

So whose side are the great British public on? Innes quoted a study showing that only 20% of the population are opposed to health passes showing that there is broad acceptance of the idea. Carlo admitted that the past year has been a “rocky road” for liberties, but she maintained her faith in the rationalism of the public.

Innes conceded that, though she supports passports for children, she would propose implement them for babies. Meanwhile, Carlo says there is already an expectation for people in healthcare roles to take vaccines that does not need to be mandatory. Similarly people who are vulnerable to the virus and other diseases should be strongly expected.

Whether vaccine passports leave you with an uplifting vision of the post-pandemic world or a dystopian future, we hope you enjoyed the discussion and we thank Silkie and Kirsty for their time.

Join the discussion


To join the discussion, get the free daily email and read more articles like this, sign up.

It's simple, quick and free.

Sign me up
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
59 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Reidinger
Paul Reidinger
1 year ago

The most telling passage in this discussion begins at about 32:54, when Freddie S. asks the million-dollar question: If most people are vaccinated and herd immunity obtains, what does it matter if some people aren’t vaccinated or are even infected? Of course it doesn’t matter, as Kirsty Innes well knows. She squirts out her squid ink to avoid answering the question. There could be dangerous viral “variants,” she worries — but don’t the vaccines work against those, and if they don’t, then it’s as if no one is vaccinated or immune at all and back to lockdowns/masks we go. “It’s not under control anywhere until it’s under control everywhere,” she says — an absolutist position — but then adds that “there’s no absolutes” and even vaccinated people mustn’t feel completely safe. That is what I call talking out of both sides of your mouth.
“There’s no out of the woods,” she says, and that’s the gist of her presentation. There will never be an end to this if the ZeroCovidistas, of whom she is plainly one, continue to have their way. Hence the remorseless fear-mongering.
I very, very seriously question whether this pathogen is worth all the fuss. In all this time, I have never seen any evidence, from anywhere in the world, that this thing presents a meaningful threat to the general population. It is an influenza-like illness that predominantly affects the very old and ill, and it is certain to become endemic. It is just another coronavirus, of which there are already seven (I think) in constant circulation. Dr. Giesicke told Freddy Sayers a year ago or so, at the outset of this self-inflicted catastrophe, that the pathogen causes “a mild disease.” Was he wrong? Is there a proportionality question that just might have been overlooked or ignored?
Vaccine “passports” surely would be the beginning of a much more extensive system of “social credit,” such as is used in Communist China. Almost everything that has happened in the Western countries over the past year, in fact, has the flavor of Communist China — lockdowns, mandates, orders, curfews, rough and invasive policing, surveillance, a basic disregard, if not outright contempt, for the people. The people have overslept. It is possible to hit the snooze button one too many times. The moment for someone to stand up and say, No more, enough, is overdue.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Reidinger
LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Reidinger

If these ID card/trackers were introduced then lower Covid deaths would be because of them. Any variants or more deaths would be due to not enough authoritarianism.

It’s heads they win, tails we lose. Honestly these people are exceptionally dangerous.

Last edited 1 year ago by LUKE LOZE
Sean L
Sean L
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Reidinger

Truth: Covid is an almighty racket. The good news according to Reiner Fuellmich is that it can be proven in court that people are lying. Whether or to what extent that applies to journalists isn’t clear. But others, including scientists and politicians, he argues, are criminally culpable.

Barry Crombie
Barry Crombie
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Reidinger

It makes absolutely no sense and is typical of the arguments at the moment that only see Covid as a hazard. Covid is likely to disappear despite what the vaccine sceptics on the pro-authoritarian lockdown side say so what will be the next health scare we can add to your app?

Mike Hersh
Mike Hersh
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Reidinger

Vaccine passports are ultimately irrelevant and useless. Vaccination does NOT guarantee that a vaccinated person would be unable to transmit the virus (assuming they were symptomatic). Both Pfizer and Moderna did NOT test transmissibility as a primary or secondary endpoint in their clinical trials, nor did they validate whether their test subjects infected others. You can verify this fact by reading the submissions from both pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, so-called “vaccination passports” are completely useless, and worse, they confer a false sense of security upon any population that accepts them. Additionally, “vaccination passports” also create separate classes of citizens that prejudice those individuals who can not or will not accept vaccinations.
To date, there is NO clinical evidence that is robust enough to state that ANY vaccine can prevent transmission of COVID. ALL the data points to is that those who are fully (and properly) vaccinated, have a lower chance of becoming symptomatic! That’s it. Beyond that, they do not offer protection from severe illness or death.
The only useful (and quick) method of verifying a person’s infectiousness is through rapid antigen testing. Our hopelessly inept governments and their health department “experts” (SAGE, NERVTAG et al) have repeatedly chosen the wrong strategies in managing this pandemic.
Secondly, why would anyone choose to take a vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna or others) which has such a low level of efficacy (less than 1%)? The calculated Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) is about 0.75% (for Pfizer) which is extremely poor. The media has been relentlessly publishing the mostly meaningless Relative Risk Reduction of 90-95%. Read through both Pfizer and Moderna’s submissions to the FDA or PHE and you can then calculate the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) The NNT is about 120, meaning that you will need to treat (vaccinate ) 120 patients in order to prevent one adverse outcome ( one case of Covid19). That’s unacceptably poor – for this vaccine or any therapeutic drug. Why expose 120 healthy people (so that 1 person may benefit) to a drug that has NOT been evaluated for long term adverse events?
I’m quoting from the review in the British Medical Journal: “First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly NOT the vaccine’s ability to save lives, NOR the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown”

Roger Borg
Roger Borg
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike Hersh

Vaccine passports are not “useless”. They will be extremely effective at their intended purpose. It’s just got nothing to do with health, and everything to do with inculcating us to accept that we have to beg for revocable permission every time we travel, recreate, work and shop.
Since there’s no reason to introduce them, there will be no reason to remove them, ever.
Anyone who thinks otherwise, or who doesn’t believe that they will very quickly become Social Credit Score apps, well, I hope you’re right. I really do.

Jerry Smith
Jerry Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Reidinger

Precisely! While Kirsty put her case very cogently (though I’m still not convinced) it took Freddie rather than her opponent to raise the non-civil-liberties but central question of Why is this even deemed to be necessary? I guess the debate was premised on civil liberties rather than science, which was unfortunate.

Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Reidinger

In addition to your comments, the government is duplicitous and choosesWHO advice as & how it suits itself . Previously the WHO was advocating AGAINST locking down – but our government set the world in motion . Then they ACCEPTED the advice ( again changed by WHO) on face masks. Then they are again going AGAINST the WHO in the vaccine pp advice! This is a truly knee jerk, poorly thought out policy akin to running amok, scared witless, helter-skelter, throwing out policies at random, without looking at what you are running from (or even if it is at all dangerous )!

Mark Walker
Mark Walker
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Reidinger

No data/facts are discussed, sadly just hot air.

Jack Streuth
Jack Streuth
1 year ago

First of all thank you for the debate, really interesting. And thank you to Freddie for asking the most obvious question, a good answer to which I have yet to hear. If the vulnerable and the vast majority of people are vaccinated and therefore protected, where is the need for a vaccine passport ? If you believe in the vaccination, then there is no need for the passport, if you don’t believe in the vaccination, then what is the point of the passport ?

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack Streuth

Yeah but umm variants and stuff, only through the giving up of all our freedoms can we be truly free. Take the vaccine, it’s amazing and will protect you, but please remain very scared forever. If we all work hard and continue to sacrifice everything that makes life worth living we can continuing sacrificing forever. Together we can suppress 1 virus, you’ll all live miserable shorter lives – but possibly be less likely to die of Covid.

Surely the intelligent and evil
(as opposed to the fearful, hysterical and brain dead) supporters of ID cards also realise that
1. The vaccines offer maybe a 67% reduction in passing on the virus. This is great, but hardly watertight. If you don’t trust the vaccine you’ve had, the idea that any other person in the pub is merely 2/3 less likely to kill you probably won’t fill you with confidence. Its 2/3 less of massive odds too. If you’re scared of say a 1 in 1 million chance, is a 1 in 3 million that much better?

2. Will those with weak immune systems who don’t respond well enough to the vaccines be shunned like anti-vaxers? They’re probably more dangerous as they’re less likely to suppress a virus than a healthy refusnik or gain decent natural immunity.
3. Ditto but for people who are unable to have the jab for medical reasons.
4. Will all vaccine passports be automatically revoked once a variant reduces the vaccine efficiency to a certain level?
5. That flu and several other viruses are far more dangerous to youngsters than Covid. So surely they must be included too – untill 12 months ago we pretended to care about kids. We’d better keep some alive as they’ve got a pretty big bill to pay for us.
6. That the virus is endemic, its highly unlikely that the UK will remove it in the short term. The idea of wiping it out in the UK and keeping it out isn’t impossible, just staggeringly costly in financial and social terms. The idea of wiping it out worldwide is beyond fantasy – its idiotic and would be such a waste compared to what could be achieved for 1/1000th of the cost that would be wasted on it.
8. Injecting a child who cannot meaningfully consent, and not for their benefit is deeply worrying.
7. You could save more lives in the UK alone if you completely got rid of smoking, NHS say 78,000 a year.
8. People will presumably still be ‘free’ to go to each others houses, parties etc. So the virus well continue to spread with ease.
9. That due to the profile of vaccine refusers you’d be bringing in de facto apartheid. Don’t worry though lots of these communities will still mingle with each other and the rest of us.
10. That Tony Blair is a vile human being and a war criminal. Surely this tells you enough.

Of course they know all of this. The kindest thing to say is that the passport is like a lucky charm for those unable to weigh up risk in their lives. To these people if you’ve been vaccinated stay at home, there’s other viruses out there, always the chance of a mutation, car accident, freak weather or terrorist attack, for yours and my sake stay at home and write to your MP demanding that something is done to prevent lightening strikes.

Dave Smith
Dave Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

All very true of course but my mate Ron is far more worried about the zombie infestation around his scrapyard. Lots of them have these masks on so you cannot tell them from the normals . He says it is all very well having vaccines and passports and he likes Tony Blair a lot ( some people do you know ) but if you get bitten by one of the masked up creatures then you are in real trouble. He has put a few in the scrap crusher but it is dangerous work and they scream a lot and worry the dogs and little Dimitri thinks it is cruel .

Laurence Renshaw
Laurence Renshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

All good points, but you may be missing the point about variants.
If a new variant comes along, and may be slightly resistant to some vaccines, the authorities will just invalidate everyone’s vaccination records.
Hey presto, instant lockdown of the entire population (via effective closure of all businesses) without having to involve parliament or even announce any new rules.

Last edited 1 year ago by Laurence Renshaw
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jack Streuth

I support the vaccine passports if they also include the persons criminal records, may as well make them usefull to the max. Being in a shopping environment with shoplifters just means the goods cost more, so the passport would help keep my prices down there. It would make me feel MUCH safer in the pub late at night where everyone is drinking knowing violent drunks have been kept out. Knowing the person next to you is not a pick-pocket, thief, or psycho is comforting – which brings us to it also having Mental Health issues on it. I do not want to be in a crowded theater with a crazy guy sitting next to me.

So much good could come from these. First it was 6 weeks to ‘Flatten the Curve. now it is being electronically branded like cattle, and I back it 100%!

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

But that would infringe the criminal’s human rights!
I’d presume that safety first people wouldn’t bother with most of this. Best to execute anyone who has committed a serious violent crime, and lock everyone else up. Probably best to convict anyone who’s a suspect too, don’t want to take the risk – sure we might kill 10,000s of ‘innocent’ people, but think of the lives we could save.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago

This document is simply the starting point for a massive database where all sorts of information is centrally collated. The more that data is collected, the more it will be used to regulate everyday transactions in an allegedly “free society”. It’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that the passport would be contained purely to this virus and vaccination.
The Chinese have a system of social credit, developed by American Big Tech, that functions the same way. Say something online that is deemed offensive and suddenly your ability to travel or to use facilities is blocked. What once was an accepted freedom is now a privilege that authorities can terminate on a whim.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

I have never owned a cell phone, I will not be GPS tagged and tracked. I have no electronics in my vehicles, what pictures I take is pre GPS camera, my phone is a computer generated home phone, I never am online with out a Panamanian (they do not keep any records, from their days as money launderers), Global based, VPN, my computer is erased every time I close a page, NONE of my passwords are kept, nor my favorites, nor anything of me, on my own computer. I clean my computer every time I close it. I live with aliases, even hold credit cards in those names, I am not on social media….. But then I have led a very weird life, one not one like you led, and so see a different reality to you all.

I guess you can tell where I stand on vaccine passports. It all is a Plandemic anyway, just to get you turkeys to agree to become government property, and usher in the Great Reset.

Alison Houston
Alison Houston
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Ted! I thought you were in prison.

Harold Aitch
Harold Aitch
1 year ago

“Tony Blair Institute”. That alone should put the fear of God into anyone who still appreciates their privacy and freedoms. It was Blair and New Labour that pushed hard for a fully integrated National Identity Database, hidden behind their ID Card ploy, and I fought against that the same way I will fight against covid “passports”. The odds that this “passport” won’t morph into an integrated National Identity database and surveillance system are probably slim to anorexic

Last edited 1 year ago by Harold Aitch
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 year ago
Reply to  Harold Aitch

Correct,
Tony Blair has done more damage to this country than George Blake and all the Cambridge. (sodomite) Spies combined.
He is a pestilential menace to our security, as is his wife.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago
Reply to  Harold Aitch

Tony Blair is the world’s greatest Social Engineer. He sent his creature Mandleson to scour the world for the type of migrants, by the millions, to “Rub the Right’s Nose In It”. Back before him my old part of London was almost all British people, it is not now at all. London is less then 49% native British now, my old parts the ones left are heavy on the side of old folk still owning their houses, when they sell it changes. This was Blair’s misson, and he did it, never said why, never had a vote, just something he wanted, a sort of hobby if you will.

I actually support Preti Patel’s plan to bring in a million Hong Kong people as they will be real value added migrants, educated, well off, entrepreneurial, law abiding, their children do excellently at education. But Preti is from the India/Africa diaspora, and her kind have done more for Britain than any other recent immigrants. I am not anti-immigrant, but for immigration only to benefit, not for what ever reason Blair wanted. If Blair is for anything it is harmful to British People.

Kelly Mitchell
Kelly Mitchell
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

Tony Blair is the world’s greatest Social Engineer.”
Pah! As an American, I hold up William Gates as the WGSE. You British, thinking you can best us Yanks at our own game.
Think Again!
Slavery is Freedom, etc.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago
Reply to  Kelly Mitchell

The American Blair was JFK who decided USA was way too white and middle class so figured open the borders to all except Europeans, (he made it hard for Europeans to immigrate), and presto – 50 years later USA has everything written in English and Spanish, and now his fellow Biden is pushing the same plan even harder.

The Dem Elites HATE White Middle Class and wish to destroy them as Stalin did the Kulaks, as they are hard working people who own their own means of production instead of being clients of the state, and therefore are not controllable.

Matt Cronin
Matt Cronin
1 year ago

I find with these sorts of laws, or proposals for ideas. When maybe you agree with them, and think your govt may genuinely only want to use them for what they state.

That is the time to pause. Think about the same laws in the hands of someone else, someone who may want to use them for something you don’t agree with. Imagine the worst-case scenarios. Then decide whether you want to give anyone the power to do that.

If you think the worst-case scenarios couldn’t happen, then think of this country’s general direction of travel.

I’m on the borderline of the vulnerable age category. I received my first invite to be vaccinated today. Of everything going on at the moment, I find the thought of catching the virus the least scary option of them all.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Cronin

Exactly. Mission creep is a fundamental feature of even the most well-intentioned govt program.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago

Good morning Turkeys, today we vote on if we should celebrate Christmas – It’ll be fun, gifts, great meals with the family, decorations, drinks, cheer, and if you vote ‘YES’, well; You are invited!

Stewart B
Stewart B
1 year ago

Spanish flu – which was much much worse – came and went and life returned to normal as before.
This has come and will go, if isn’t on the way out already.
We don’t need to have horrible authoritarian measures put in place that will persist long after the problem has disappeared just because some people fantasise about technology that will control millions of people.

Alison Houston
Alison Houston
1 year ago

Back in the day when I was naive enough to have it, I fell out with a gay tenor I knew on Facebook, because he supported a campaign to make sure employers knew everyone’s sexual whatever we are allowed to call them, these days, – instincts, inclinations, predilections. This was supposed to be a good idea because it would mean employers could give homosexuals equivalent time off to do their gay things as they allowed parents and weirdly, he argued, ‘pet owners’.

Some people it seems have a narcissistic desire to be completely known to the state. They get off on the idea of ‘Big Brother’, surveillance is after all just another form of voyeurism as was demonstrated in ‘The Lives of Others’.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago

why dont the “health passports” also say if you have gained immunity naturally? why it has to be the vaccine??

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
1 year ago

Well of course they aren’t. And nor are the vaccines themselves for all healthy people below the age of 65 or 70. But we will all be forced to comply if we wish to so much as leave the house.
This will be particularly annoying for those of us who do not wish to have a wretched smartphone, although some people do seem to traveling with test forms/results that have been printed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Fraser Bailey
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Fraser, You do not have a cell Phone? I thought I was the last one. But if the Blair Institute is involved in managing this I am sure they will allow a micro-quantom dot tattoo, as pushed by Bill Gates and ID 2020. It is cool, worth a search.

:To that end, he is pushing for disease surveillance and a vaccine tracking system2 that might involve embedding vaccination records on our bodies. One example of how this might be done is using an invisible ink quantum dot tattoo, described in a December 18, 2019, Science Translational Medicine paper.3,4″

The invisible “tattoo” accompanying the vaccine is a pattern made up of minuscule quantum dots – tiny semiconducting crystals that reflect light – that glows under infrared light. The pattern – and vaccine – gets delivered into the skin using hi-tech dissolvable microneedles made of a mixture of polymers and sugar.

The tattoo can be read like a bar code, by a cell phone enabled to it, and so everyone is identified. Cool.

Strait out of Revelations 13:16 “16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”

andrew harman
andrew harman
1 year ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

I don’t have one either – never have, never will.

David Platzer
David Platzer
1 year ago
Reply to  andrew harman

I am envious of all these people haven’t got a mobile. I keep mine off much of the time but not enough.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago
Reply to  andrew harman

Andrew, they will track us down and implant chips in us – for sure. Good to hear there is another human on the planet, I thought all the rest were lizards by now.

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
1 year ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Rule 2 of authoritarian government (rule 1 is pretty much failing at delivering security or anything they promise) is that corruption will rule.

Want a form, you’ll just have to pay the ‘fee’ to the party official.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago

“That’s the choice we have … It’s nobodies fault”
That’s how they scam you, making you believe that there are no other choices.
Once those passports are in place, you will see that they will quickly be used for other purposes. In fact, the vaccine is irrelevant, the whole point is probably justifying having this system in place.

David Slade
David Slade
1 year ago

Thanks for the interview, it was interesting to see how the advocates of these measures respond when confronted with opposition. Sadly, there was some pretty obvious, tried and tested methods of deflection from the Blair Institute representative – including false choices (it’s my hideous passport or lockdown for ever etc). I was glad that the leading nature of most of these ‘opinion’ polls, that supposedly produce high support for these things, was highlighted and the other interviewee didn’t let that one pass.
Sadly, it is always going to be difficult to argue the importance of human rights and freedom purely on its own merits – because someone will just say ‘why?’. Its then you realise that you are in a debate with someone whose values have moved so far from yours that there can be no hope of common ground. I think this pandemic has done that to a lot of people – if you fear the virus then you are happy to suspend all other values, that’s certainly the impression I got from the Blair institute in this interview.
People need to realise that – far from being a necessity – many of these dystopian measures – including lockdown itself – are being enabled by technology that is ten years old at most. By contrast, we have had three deadly pandemics in the past 100 years where these things were not an option – in the first (and most deadly), there were no vaccines either. Prior to that, virus’ have been regularly jumping from animal reservoirs to humans since at least the dawn of agriculture. The claim that the lady from the BI makes ‘that its this or lockdown’ is clearly and demonstrably nonsense; as if that was true humanity would have been rendered extinct many times in the past when none of these things were even possible. These solutions are – in effect – an exercise in imposing the undesirable through indulging what is possible.
Only when people realise that the dystopia this leads to is never necessary – only ever promoted by the malevolent and acquiesced to by the fearful – will we finally put all these green blooded technocrats and their hobby horses back under the rocks they crawled from. Freedom is the natural order of things – not dystopia.
We need to make it clear we want it back

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago

What seems to be forgotten in this debate is the Science. There has been a very poor scientific debate throughout the pandemic which makes opinions very unreliable.For the moment it is unclear what vaccines will exactly achieve in the pandemic. The answer is far from black and white. The only thing a passport will do is reassure those who are frightened.

Laurence Renshaw
Laurence Renshaw
1 year ago

You’re right about the unreliable science, but vaccine passports are unnecessary, whatever the science eventually concludes about the vaccines. The reasons Blair is pushing them have nothing to do with a virus that will be practically gone by the time the technology is rolled out.

Al K
Al K
1 year ago

Well done Silkie, you are awesome. Kirsty seems really well-suited for the spokesperson job for any authoritarian regime the world over. Scary stuff.

Michael McVeigh
Michael McVeigh
1 year ago

Income Tax was a temporary government measure.

Roger Borg
Roger Borg
1 year ago

One day we’ll finally track down and defeat that perfidious rogue Bonaparte, you’ll see.

Mike Hersh
Mike Hersh
1 year ago

Vaccine passports are ultimately irrelevant and useless. Vaccination does NOT guarantee that a vaccinated person would be unable to transmit the virus (assuming they were symptomatic). Both Pfizer and Moderna did NOT test transmissibility as a primary or secondary endpoint in their clinical trials, nor did they validate whether their test subjects infected others. You can verify this fact by reading the submissions from both pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, so-called “vaccination passports” are completely useless, and worse, they confer a false sense of security upon any population that accepts them. Additionally, “vaccination passports” also create separate classes of citizens that prejudice those individuals who can not or will not accept vaccinations.
To date, there is NO clinical evidence that is robust enough to state that ANY vaccine can prevent transmission of COVID. ALL the data points to is that those who are fully (and properly) vaccinated, have a lower chance of becoming symptomatic! That’s it. Beyond that, they do not offer protection from severe illness or death.
The only useful (and quick) method of verifying a person’s infectiousness is through rapid antigen testing. Our hopelessly inept governments and their health department “experts” (SAGE, NERVTAG et al) have repeatedly chosen the wrong strategies in managing this pandemic.
Secondly, why would anyone choose to take a vaccine (Pfizer or Moderna or others) which has such a low level of efficacy (less than 1%)? The calculated Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) is about 0.75% (for Pfizer) which is extremely poor. The media has been relentlessly publishing the mostly meaningless Relative Risk Reduction of 90-95%. Read through both Pfizer and Moderna’s submissions to the FDA or PHE and you can then calculate the Number Needed to Treat (NNT) The NNT is about 120, meaning that you will need to treat (vaccinate ) 120 patients in order to prevent one adverse outcome ( one case of Covid19). That’s unacceptably poor – for this vaccine or any therapeutic drug. Why expose 120 healthy people (so that 1 person may benefit) to a drug that has NOT been evaluated for long term adverse events?
I’m quoting from the review in the British Medical Journal: “First, a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%. Second, these results refer to the trials’ primary endpoint of covid-19 of essentially any severity, and importantly NOT the vaccine’s ability to save lives, NOR the ability to prevent infection, nor the efficacy in important subgroups (e.g. frail elderly). Those still remain unknown”

Barry Crombie
Barry Crombie
1 year ago

The likelihood, despite the protestations of the zerocovid and pro-lockdown authoritarians that Covid will actually become a much less serious risk in the year to come as the West vaccinates and we already have a good level of population immunity based on infection and susceptibility. It will become like a seasonal flu (where Covid pandemic, despite what is said, is not that dissimilar from pandemic flu). What will happen to the app then? The temptation to add more and more things to it – why not other illnesses, why not criminal record? Do we exclude the potentially vulnerable from certain activities? There is this paternalistic view from arrogant idiots like Blair who thinks he is so intelligent that us little people cannot make decisions ourselves and need to be told what to do for our own good.

Laurence Renshaw
Laurence Renshaw
1 year ago

We can highlight the lies about vaccine passports, and the fact that they aren’t needed and don’t actually protect anyone, but how can we stop them when politicians love the idea of more control and half the population says “Yes, I understand that it will take away our civil liberties, and I know I’m being illogical and maybe they won’t really help, but it makes me feel a little bit safer so I’m in favour of them”. I know plenty of people who would say exactly that, plus one or two who love the idea of a Chinese style police state.

Last edited 1 year ago by Laurence Renshaw
Arman Srsa
Arman Srsa
1 year ago

It makes a for a compelling strategy doesn’t it… put people under lockdown and make sure they get used to it so that when the government comes with such a policy people will accept it just because they are desperate to get their lives back.. So in a sense, we are all hostages who are now willing to give up more than we had ever dreamed just to be able to live normal lives

Ivan Hybs
Ivan Hybs
1 year ago

I just listened to the interview with Kirsty Innes and Silkie Carlo. It is alarming how far the discourse has shifted. We seriously discuss health/vaccination passports and introducing “permanent measures” and legislation in place for this and future (however hypothetical) pandemics (and other possible necessities). We have moved far away from the fundamental question, that is, how serious illness the Covid-19 really is and how does it justify the government powers in order to control it. I am writing from Australia where we do not have any Covid-19 to speak of. We had an outbreak about year ago though. I have many close friends and relatives in the Czech Republic and Austria and they have high levels of infection there. I personally know a number of people, in all three countries, who suffered of Covid-19. Their ages range from five to ninety three. None of them experienced any really serious illness. Their symptoms ranged from none to very light for those below sixty while those over sixty had have unpleasant but ultimately not serious illness. I am sure this would be also the experience for people of Britain. Yes, Covid is very contagious, yes it is dangerous for some people and yes we should try not to catch it and get vaccinated as soon as possible. But to keep the current measures and to introduce new ones “for the future use” is plain crazy. We should keep a bit of perspective here. There are far deadlier diseases around. On personal note, I should add I am in my seventies and I want to be vaccinated at the first opportunity and to have a vaccination passport if necessary (although it worries me if my insurance companies will require to see it before I can get an insurance) in order to be able to see my grandchildren in England as the passport/card/ document seems bound to become a condition for traveling internationally, however totalitarian restriction that is.

David Platzer
David Platzer
1 year ago

The current vaccine, cooked up as quickly as a McDonald’s burger, is voodoo medicine at best.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
1 year ago
Reply to  David Platzer

Good call, as the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is made from dead, aborted, babies. (look it up). That has to be voodo.

When ever you think society cannot get any sicker, you find out it can.

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
1 year ago

Until I actually see people dying I’m doing whatever I want. I’ve been doing it for months. Lost some friends but gained new ones. New ones who aren’t pathetic cowards. Lol. Going to my fourth live music event in this month on Saturday. Get out there people. Screw the fascists. Quit listening to them.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dennis Boylon
Bits Nibbles
Bits Nibbles
1 year ago

I must’ve missed something. Are children in the UK being actively vaccinated already??? The US still hasn’t approved, and is unlikely to approve anytime soon, the vaccine being administered to anybody under the age of 18.

Laurence Renshaw
Laurence Renshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Bits Nibbles

Fauci did a speech very recently in which he said the vaccines should be rolled out to ever younger age groups, eventually reaching 6-month-old babies.
He didn’t say how that helps anyone, of course – fascism is its own reason.

Laurence Renshaw
Laurence Renshaw
1 year ago

The Blair witch was so slippery and dishonest – first it’s because other countries might require it, then it’s only for access to care homes, then it’s for football matches, and then it’s for pubs and everywhere.
First it’s needed until June, then until everyone is vaccinated (end of 2021), and then it’s literally for ever, so we have a head start when the next pandemic comes along.
And she presents it as a choice between being locked down and having a health passport, which is a lie – we are getting to the point where we can all be free again, without passports.
The Big Brother Watch lady could have argued more strongly, but her analogy with being tagged and scanned like cattle is a very good one.
Another point is that, like any government IT scheme (look at track&trace!), this will take months or years to implement – so it will only be up and running properly when Covid is just a memory.
Her boss failed in his push for mandatory biometric id cards when he was Prime Minister, but he sees another opportunity while people are so scared of the virus.
Totally evil

Last edited 1 year ago by Laurence Renshaw
Paul Goodman
Paul Goodman
1 year ago

TB has said before that he regretted not being able to implement ID cards this no doubt is part of that agenda. He peddles the BS that it is about modernity but it is not. I am happy to be identified to protect my info: Bank, HMRC, NHS etc. If he wants modernity I would like to know which Medical staff have seen my information that would be good.
That interview I induced me to deleted my covid 19 nhs app that Lady really unnerved me. Other than for international travel whether I have been vaccinated or not is nobody’s business and I will not be revealing my business for any other reason. Neither by the way will I be having any tests to gain access to anywhere.
We have a credible program to for all over 18s to have been offered (if not administered) both shots by September and all restrictions are due to be over by 21st June. Unless there are more than 100 deaths a week there is no reason to have any restrictions other than on unvaccinated international travel.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Goodman
paul white
paul white
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Goodman

Your last sentence (if correct) will, I think, guarantee there will be more than 100 deaths a week

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Much better format! Balance had been lacking in Unherd interviews so I for one am glad of this new approach.
On the issue I have sympathy with both sides and again I believe a mid way approach will be best. However ‘enforcers’ to use an ugly term will invariably abuse the power bestowed upon them so to redress this imbalance severe penalties should be applied for any such abuses.
Should Luddites use smart phones?

Roger Borg
Roger Borg
1 year ago

Point of order, the false positive rate of the lateral flow tests is not 0.1%. According to the BMJ, when performed outside of a clinical setting, it is 0.32% (Liverpool mass testing) up to 0.38% (public self testing).
The Government’s estimate for the “gold standard” PCR test lists an eye watering 2.3% (0.8 – 4.0%) false positive rate.
This is particularly significant since the ONS daily figures for total tests vs positive results (which they still insist on calling “cases”) has fallen to a mere 0.35% positive rate for the latest full day figures, i.e. squarely in the range of false positives for the tests.
Even when looking at weekends, when the test rate plummets and the positive rate rises due testing fewer non-symptomatic people, we haven’t exceeded a 1% positive rate in March.
Please do feel free to check my working:
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4469

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
1 year ago

Heil Gates!!! We must all submit to our great leader in this time of crisis and embrace the neofeudal order. Our betters will protect us.

Stephen Laundy
Stephen Laundy
1 year ago

I do not remember signing a document that gives the NHS, the government or anyone a monopoly over my health. I use all sorts from homeopathy, acupuncture and of course my doctor and nutritionist. I love the NHS and my Dr but they are about 70% of my “monopoly” depending what i have. And i see it as my responsibility what to do if i have an illness. I am not antivax.

Last edited 8 months ago by Stephen Laundy