Vaccine Passports/Permanent restrictions

[35B]

I haven't seen anything that says that pubs and shops will actually be legally required to check vaccine status? At that point is ceases to be libertarian and becomes a technocratic hell.

It still rests upon the role of the state in providing the wherewithal (which may just be permissive) for those passports.

 

[duncanp]

The problem with the choice of vaccine passports or social distancing is that it screws the economy, one way or the other.

If vaccine passports are compulsory for entry to a particular venue , that excludes those who haven't been vaccinated, can't be vaccinated, whose vaccination is out of date, have forgotten their vaccination certificate, who can't show a certificate because their phone is lost/stolen/has a dead battery. And that is without considering those whose valid vaccination certificate is rejected by the tin pot little Hitler at the entry to the venue.

Also at what venues should vaccine certificates be compulsory? The virus doesn't care whether you are in Starbucks or Wetherspoons, so you would have to include coffee shops and cafes as well as pubs. And then why not places of worship, swimming pools as well?

If social distancing is in operation at a venue, then the numbers are reduced, and the venue will make little or no profit.

The near universal opposition of the hospitality sector to the idea of vaccine certificates makes me think that they will only be used to coerce those in the who might be less likely to get a jab (for whatever reason) to get vaccinated.

Edit:

And this piece by Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, echoes my opinion perfectly.

Access Restricted

Vaccine passports are unworkable and illiberal

As Britain exits lockdown, all of our freedoms must be restored, in full. There can be no two-tier society.

Now perhaps you've just read the headline to this piece and you're thinking; gosh, I agree with the Lib Dems. I'm also surprising myself: I agree with Michael Gove.

Not the Michael Gove currently leading the charge for Covid ID cards within the Government. But a slightly younger, more liberal Michael Gove who, years ago, during the debate over Labour's ID cards, noted (and I paraphrase): "In human history we see that laws that are brought in during an emergency are scarcely ever abandoned by government."

Mr Gove, please, for the sake of traditional British freedoms, spend a bit of time with your former self.

But it's not just Gove. I was deeply alarmed when we heard Boris Johnson suggest that so-called domestic vaccine passports - essentially, Covid ID cards - are being considered for use in the UK. They are illiberal, unworkable and would be utterly ineffective in keeping people safe from Covid.

As the party of civil liberties and personal freedoms, the Liberal Democrats rejected Labour's attempted introduction of ID cards under Tony Blair. We see no reason now why we should accept the vaccine ID cards of Michael Gove and Boris Johnson.

With ID cards, the Prime Minister of "levelling-up" fame would be the creator of a new two-tier society. People who have not been vaccinated could become second-class citizens, unable to access the freedoms allowed to their friends and family who have been inoculated.

Around this time last year, we took a difficult decision due to Covid: we came together as a country and agreed to suspend many of our fundamental freedoms with lockdowns and social distancing. These were the only weapons we had to stop the spread of this lethal virus: we rightly did everything we could to slow its spread.

But as we transition out of lockdown a year on, and begin reopening our economy and society, all our freedoms must be restored, in full, as soon as it is safe to do so. We must open up as equals, as one country.

The Government's plans for Covid ID cards would not help the hospitality industry. They would hit our pubs and restaurants with a sledgehammer, at a time when the focus should be on recovery. The costs of checking the ID cards on the door and of security to remove those without them would create an unfair burden on an already struggling industry.

And no vaccine has yet been authorised for use on children and adolescents, while some people cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. What use is a vaccine passport if it doesn't allow us to go out for a meal with our loved ones?

It is simply mistaken to believe that vaccine passports will allow us to open up our economy and society faster. Other countries have not needed such restrictions to open up. Why should it be different in the UK?

We have seen from Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand that it is possible to lift lockdowns without such draconian measures - because they had low case numbers and a functioning track-and-trace system.

We all know that Boris Johnson is a fan of grand projects and easy fixes. But surely, by now, even the Prime Minister must have learnt that there are no quick and simple routes out of this pandemic.

Mending the systems we have in place may not be glamorous. It won't make for exciting headlines, but it would save lives and allow us to begin to open up.

So we must not let this Government patch over the cracks in its test, trace and isolate system with bureaucratic and invasive Covid ID cards. We must not allow it continued control of people's lives long after the need is gone.

Effective testing and tracing and proper measures at our borders, combined with a proper self-isolation system, all supported by the success of the vaccination rollout, is the way out of the pandemic.

It is clear that better days are now ahead. But separating society into haves and have-nots will not end this pandemic. Robust public health measures and working together will.

We must get all our freedoms back, together.

 

[kristiang85]

The problem with the choice of vaccine passports or social distancing is that it screws the economy, one way or the other.

If vaccine passports are compulsory for entry to a particular venue , that excludes those who haven't been vaccinated, can't be vaccinated, whose vaccination is out of date, have forgotten their vaccination certificate, who can't show a certificate because their phone is lost/stolen/has a dead battery. And that is without considering those whose valid vaccination certificate is rejected by the tin pot little Hitler at the entry to the venue.

Also at what venues should vaccine certificates be compulsory? The virus doesn't care whether you are in Starbucks or Wetherspoons, so you would have to include coffee shops and cafes as well as pubs. And then why not places of worship, swimming pools as well?

If social distancing is in operation at a venue, then the numbers are reduced, and the venue will make little or no profit.

The near universal opposition of the hospitality sector to the idea of vaccine certificates makes me think that they will only be used to coerce those in the who might be less likely to get a jab (for whatever reason) to get vaccinated.

Edit:

And this piece by Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, echoes my opinion perfectly.

Access Restricted

And with that, I think I now know who's getting my vote in May.

 

[35B]

I don't see why that follows. Probably not the best analogy, but if I live in a house with a fence and a burglar alarm and lots of high-spec locks and all sorts of other security measures, why care if Fred Bloggs down the street leaves his front door open every time he goes out?



Actually I see a good opposite argument. Vaccine 'passports' are only a feasible idea if the vast majority of people have the vaccine. The more people that don't, the less likely the requirement for a 'passport' can spread into more areas of life. So not taking the vaccine is in some sense a stand against the passports, too, which seems another good reason for those not at particular risk from the virus to consider not taking the vaccine.



I hope we don't have to find out which of us is correct. I fear we will, though.

I disagree with your logic - the role of a passport is more likely if vaccination levels are marginal for the calculated risk. Vaccination effectiveness relies on a certain proportion of the population having immunity so that those who haven't had the vaccine are protected by general herd immunity. The damage done by the MMR scandal was that vaccination levels fell, meaning that the diseases (especially measles) that MMR protected from were able to spread amongst both those who'd not received the vaccine and (especially dangerously) those who were too young to receive the vaccine. The freedom of choice over whether to receive a vaccine, which has been limited in various ways in various places, relies on the great majority of people taking the vaccines when offered in order for those who won't take them to receive the protection of the majority.

If the public at large are confident in their safety when doing an activity, then vaccine passports will be an irrelevance - people will just do what they want to do. If they aren't confident (and the poll results suggest precisely that), then the argument for a vaccine passport system is that it will give the nervous more confidence. One of the factors which will drive that sense of safety or risk will be vaccination levels. Therefore, if more people don't take the vaccines, the perceived risk will be higher, and with it the desire for measures that will give the cautious the assurance that they are safe.

In all of this, I agree that there's a bigger question - why if an individual has received a highly protective vaccine they should then be worried about the status of others in the first place. But that comes back to how we transition back to a normal society from one in which failure to adhere to advice can have serious consequences. Vaccine passports, mistaken though they are, are an attempt to bridge that gap.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Mar 2021 ==

To be honest it's about time the politicians got this virus into perspective. Majority of vulnerable are vaccinated and will have no or next to no effect on rest of the population. We really can do without this sort of ridiculous nonsense. Any talk of vaccine passports should be met with contempt it deserves but unfortunately majority of media are too pathetic and dare I say stupid to challenge this. Polling people with twisted questions doesn't help either as can't imagine majority of the population really do want them in reality.

The question quoted was not twisted, but very straight.

 

[LAX54]

And with that, I think I now know who's getting my vote in May.

But of course the 'other side' could well decide the same approach ! all I see the need for passports, is if another Country wants one so you can on your hols ! (and that should be short term too)

 

[duncanp]

But of course the 'other side' could well decide the same approach ! all I see the need for passports, is if another Country wants one so you can on your hols ! (and that should be short term too)

Those who are in favour of vaccine passports need to answer the question, "..how long are they going to be necessary for?.." In three months/six months/1 year/2 years time, are we still going to be faffing around with these wretched things?

Pubs are due to reopen indoors on May 17th, and everyone is due to have a first dose of the vaccine by July 31st.

A far more workable solution should be to have track & trace in place for those two and a half months, so that you can monitor how many outbreaks of COVID-19 are linked to pubs. Providing there is no uptick in cases linked to pubs, you could, for example, reduce the social distancing limit to 1 metre, allow standing at the bar and get rid of compulsory masks around June 21st, and then abolish all remaining restrictions at the end of July when all those people who will/are going to be vaccinated will have had their first doses.

Similar policies could be in places for other settings such as places of worship, where the deadly practice of singing hymns is still banned.

 

[kristiang85]

But of course the 'other side' could well decide the same approach ! all I see the need for passports, is if another Country wants one so you can on your hols ! (and that should be short term too)

It's not just this, they are also (now) against lockdown policies.

 

[NorthKent1989]

In a sense it is a kind of health-prohibition we are seeing, you can only do certain activities if you comply with this week's health standards. However as we all know, prohibition threw up some rather unwanted, and permanent side effects that the US to this day cannot shake off. For where there is a rule against, there is someone willing to assist those who want to bypass the rule. Take for example cannabis, a drug legally available for years in some, but illegal in others. So what happens? People get the stuff from where it is legal through routes that are not.

So if vaccine passports did become the norm domestically, and I still don't think they will, what do you image will happen? People will either choose to go "elsewhere" for the things they cannot get, or they will find other ways to get to the places they cannot.

The other slight fly in the ointment is the passport itself, or more accurately the lack of. At the moment save a handful of countries, it exists only theoretically, just a idea floated about. If one is to be introduced before the end of June, the government had better get a wiggle on, otherwise its perceived popularity with the poll takers will wain quickly when they realise that they can go for much of the year without one (and of course not dying), only to have one imposed further down the line when they are needed much less (not that they are needed even now). And then there's the small issue of compatibility with other countries versions to allow any form of travel, remembering that they may bee required for more than just travel in those countries. You only have to look at the mess that was Track & Trace to quickly realise that this sort of coordination is not easy, and never quick.

Exactly, prohibition leads to money not going to the tax man, which is what happened in the 1920s, another thing was the raves in the late 1980s to the mid 1990s, illegal raves were unregulated, drugs were passed through freely and encouraged.

Vaccine passports will cause more issues than solve them, and as you say pubs open in April, and June is when lockdown ends as a whole, so there’ll be three months without vaccine passports then come June an unvaccinated person can’t go to their local anymore even though there have been no deaths, and they’ve been able to go for the previous two months.

It’s utterly ridiculous when you put it that way, I hope you’re right that they won’t become a thing, I half suspect they won’t

 

[duncanp]

Exactly, prohibition leads to money not going to the tax man, which is what happened in the 1920s, another thing was the raves in the late 1980s to the mid 1990s, illegal raves were unregulated, drugs were passed through freely and encouraged.

Vaccine passports will cause more issues than solve them, and as you say pubs open in April, and June is when lockdown ends as a whole, so there’ll be three months without vaccine passports then come June an unvaccinated person can’t go to their local anymore even though there have been no deaths, and they’ve been able to go for the previous two months.

It’s utterly ridiculous when you put it that way, I hope you’re right that they won’t become a thing, I half suspect they won’t

What is more likely to happen is that pubs and other venues will not enforce social distancing measures, and will also not demand vaccine passports either. Or alternatively people will forge the necessary documents or obtain falsified copies.

It will then be up to local authorities or the police to enforce the legislation.

Are they really going to raid a pub, and demand to see everyone's vaccine passport?

 

[NorthOxonian]

What is more likely to happen is that pubs and other venues will not enforce social distancing measures, and will also not demand vaccine passports either. Or alternatively people will forge the necessary documents or obtain falsified copies.

It will then be up to local authorities or the police to enforce the legislation.

Are they really going to raid a pub, and demand to see everyone's vaccine passport?

I know you intended that as a rhetorical question, but no doubt Derbyshire and North Yorkshire will take it as a challenge!

 

[MikeWM]

I disagree with your logic - the role of a passport is more likely if vaccination levels are marginal for the calculated risk. Vaccination effectiveness relies on a certain proportion of the population having immunity so that those who haven't had the vaccine are protected by general herd immunity. The damage done by the MMR scandal was that vaccination levels fell, meaning that the diseases (especially measles) that MMR protected from were able to spread amongst both those who'd not received the vaccine and (especially dangerously) those who were too young to receive the vaccine. The freedom of choice over whether to receive a vaccine, which has been limited in various ways in various places, relies on the great majority of people taking the vaccines when offered in order for those who won't take them to receive the protection of the majority.

This is very different from MMR though, in that there are only a very small number of those at serious risk from the current virus are unable to get one or other of the vaccines.

Compare the flu vaccine. It has a similar risk profile to Covid, and hence is only offered to those who are at risk (and those who operate very closely to these people, such as carers). Takeup is fairly high in the at-risk groups and low in those who are not. Which makes far more sense than vaccinating everyone in sight, independent of their risk level.

If the public at large are confident in their safety when doing an activity, then vaccine passports will be an irrelevance - people will just do what they want to do. If they aren't confident (and the poll results suggest precisely that), then the argument for a vaccine passport system is that it will give the nervous more confidence. One of the factors which will drive that sense of safety or risk will be vaccination levels. Therefore, if more people don't take the vaccines, the perceived risk will be higher, and with it the desire for measures that will give the cautious the assurance that they are safe.

I refuse to agree to do crazy stuff that rips apart society into something entirely unrecognisable, simply in other to assure people who are misled or delusional as to their level of risk. That's their problem, not mine.

In all of this, I agree that there's a bigger question - why if an individual has received a highly protective vaccine they should then be worried about the status of others in the first place. But that comes back to how we transition back to a normal society from one in which failure to adhere to advice can have serious consequences. Vaccine passports, mistaken though they are, are an attempt to bridge that gap.

But you're appearing to assume that, like masks supposedly were, this is all a 'reluctant' consequence to reassure a frightened populace, rather than a planned outcome. I don't.

 

[duncanp]

I know you intended that as a rhetorical question, but no doubt Derbyshire and North Yorkshire will take it as a challenge!

If vaccine passports are made compulsory, I can predict that a court case will follow pretty shortly afterwards.

And even if you show a phone or piece of paper with a valid vaccine certificate on it, how do the police know that you are the person to whom the certificate was issued?

Unless the certificate has photo ID on it, this part of the verification process will be impossible.

 

[Bantamzen]

If vaccine passports are made compulsory, I can predict that a court case will follow pretty shortly afterwards.

And even if you show a phone or piece of paper with a valid vaccine certificate on it, how do the police know that you are the person to whom the certificate was issued?

Unless the certificate has photo ID on it, this part of the verification process will be impossible.

Track And Trace v2.0....

 

[DustyBin]

But you're appearing to assume that, like masks supposedly were, this is all a 'reluctant' consequence to reassure a frightened populace, rather than a planned outcome. I don't.

This is the government's usual modus operandi; plan an outcome, decide how it will be facilitated and then scare the population into thinking it's a good idea. The government appears to be set on altering peoples socialising habits, particularly in regard to hospitality venues, vaccine passports facilitate this and now (some) people think it's a good idea as it will keep them safe. Some people even think it will allow them to return to normal which is a fascinating viewpoint as surely vaccine passports are anything but?!

I really don't like where we're heading with all of this.

 

[MikeWM]

And even if you show a phone or piece of paper with a valid vaccine certificate on it, how do the police know that you are the person to whom the certificate was issued?

Facial recognition is being discussed. Which, of course, smart phones can (try to) do.

Remember at the same time as all of this, the government is pressing ahead with a 'digital ID' project.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uk-digital-identity-and-attributes-trust-framework

Digital identities are an easy way to help us prove who we are without the need for physical documents. They can also help us prove things about us, such as our age or our qualifications.

This document sets out the government’s vision for the rules governing the future use of digital identities. It is part of the government’s wider plan to make it quicker and easier for people to verify themselves using modern technology. The aim is to create a process as trusted as using passports or bank statements.

(bold mine)

 

[35B]

This is very different from MMR though, in that there are only a very small number of those at serious risk from the current virus are unable to get one or other of the vaccines.

Compare the flu vaccine. It has a similar risk profile to Covid, and hence is only offered to those who are at risk (and those who operate very closely to these people, such as carers). Takeup is fairly high in the at-risk groups and low in those who are not. Which makes far more sense than vaccinating everyone in sight, independent of their risk level.

I refuse to agree to do crazy stuff that rips apart society into something entirely unrecognisable, simply in other to assure people who are misled or delusional as to their level of risk. That's their problem, not mine.

But you're appearing to assume that, like masks supposedly were, this is all a 'reluctant' consequence to reassure a frightened populace, rather than a planned outcome. I don't.

We need to agree to disagree on that last point. As for the relative risk of flu and Covid, the numbers of excess deaths this year vs. flu deaths in a normal year suggest that Covid represents a different order of magnitude of risk, especially when considering the consequences other than death.

On MMR, the accessibility of the vaccines is much higher - yet a relatively small dip in vaccination coverage has visibly caused a marked impact in cases due to the loss of the protective effect of herd immunity. I believe that herd immunity worth striving for, and find it unsurprising that there is strong societal pressure after the last year to protect the gains.

For that reason, your logic for suggesting lower vaccine take-up will reduce the likelihood of measures like vaccine passports seems circular and unconvincing; more realistic by far to look at their likelihood through the lens of what will make the majority of the population (as demonstrated in that opinion poll) consider themselves safe to go out.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Remember at the same time as all of this, the government is pressing ahead with a 'digital ID' project.

In terms of that, I think it is important to realise that the world we lived in pre COVID was a pretty screwed up one anyway when it came to ID requirements.
You needed ID to do all sorts of things (rent somewhere to live, start a new job, potentially have a pint in the pub etc), but the only official government options (passport and driving license - please don't mention the other schemes, the rest of them are jokes that many places simply do not accept) left out large groups of people.
There absolutely is a need IMO for a single government issued ID that can take the place of the current passport / driving license options. Hell if the government go down the voter ID route like they want to (as discussed in another thread) having a free to obtain ID is a must anyway.
I don't think the government looking into that is a problem, neither is it being digital a problem (its 2021 - everything is digital these days, even railcards - personally I think its a joke the only thing I need to take my wallet with me for these days is for my ID).

 

[Bantamzen]

We need to agree to disagree on that last point. As for the relative risk of flu and Covid, the numbers of excess deaths this year vs. flu deaths in a normal year suggest that Covid represents a different order of magnitude of risk, especially when considering the consequences other than death.

In terms of mortality rate this really remains to be seen. Remember we have been counting deaths in terms of xx days after a positive covid test result. We really a far deeper dive into the data, especially surrounding other aliments that may also be underlying causes of death. This is why the descriptor for the deaths is with covid rather than because of covid. It may take quite some time after everything has calmed down, but I am fairly certain that this will be revisited and reappraised. Similar can be said about "consequences other than death", we simply don't know if covid is having a major effect on people's long term health in significant numbers yet.

As with a lot if things covid, there are too many assumptions to be comfortable with the conclusions being made about the disease.

In terms of that, I think it is important to realise that the world we lived in pre COVID was a pretty screwed up one anyway.
You needed ID to do all sorts of things, but the only official government options (passport and driving license) left out large groups of people.
There absolutely is a need IMO for a single government issue ID that can take the place of the current passport / driving license options.
I don't think the government looking into that is a problem, neither is it being digital a problem (its 2021 - everything is digital these days).

I don't know about you, but save travelling abroad there were few things that needed any form of ID to do.

 

[brad465]

The problem with the choice of vaccine passports or social distancing is that it screws the economy, one way or the other.

If vaccine passports are compulsory for entry to a particular venue , that excludes those who haven't been vaccinated, can't be vaccinated, whose vaccination is out of date, have forgotten their vaccination certificate, who can't show a certificate because their phone is lost/stolen/has a dead battery. And that is without considering those whose valid vaccination certificate is rejected by the tin pot little Hitler at the entry to the venue.

Also at what venues should vaccine certificates be compulsory? The virus doesn't care whether you are in Starbucks or Wetherspoons, so you would have to include coffee shops and cafes as well as pubs. And then why not places of worship, swimming pools as well?

If social distancing is in operation at a venue, then the numbers are reduced, and the venue will make little or no profit.

The near universal opposition of the hospitality sector to the idea of vaccine certificates makes me think that they will only be used to coerce those in the who might be less likely to get a jab (for whatever reason) to get vaccinated.

Edit:

And this piece by Sir Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, echoes my opinion perfectly.

Access Restricted

And with that, I think I now know who's getting my vote in May.

While I haven't heard any other Lib Dems hold that view (not that there are many anyway), the leader promoting that view could garner some significant support for the Lib Dems (at least relative to what they're currently getting), with that point of view on restoring freedoms. The only trouble of course is he's not getting much publicity with this at the moment, unless it ends up being a feature of local election media, including leaflets.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't know about you, but save travelling abroad there were few things that needed any form of ID to do.

I have added some examples in an edit but you try renting a flat today, or starting a new job or buying alcohol from somewhere where the server thinks you may be underage, or opening a bank account all without a passport or driving license. I've had to use my passport and driving license for most of those examples in the last 15 months or so.

 

[Bantamzen]

I have added some examples in an edit but you try renting a flat today, or starting a new job or buying alcohol from somewhere where the server thinks you may be underage, or opening a bank account all without a passport or driving license. I've had to use my passport and driving license for most of those examples in the last 15 months or so.

Well these kind of things aren't exactly day to day events, and given the nature of them its understandable that ID is asked for. Renting a home or opening a bank account isn't really comparable to going for a pint or a curry afterwards.

 

[MikeWM]

We need to agree to disagree on that last point.

Agreed

As for the relative risk of flu and Covid, the numbers of excess deaths this year vs. flu deaths in a normal year suggest that Covid represents a different order of magnitude of risk, especially when considering the consequences other than death.

Covid was a new disease, so there wasn't as much pre-existing immunity to it as to flu. That shouldn't be a problem going forwards. Of course people die when there is a new epidemic, that's the way the world works.

On MMR, the accessibility of the vaccines is much higher - yet a relatively small dip in vaccination coverage has visibly caused a marked impact in cases due to the loss of the protective effect of herd immunity. I believe that herd immunity worth striving for, and find it unsurprising that there is strong societal pressure after the last year to protect the gains.

But in the case of measles, we're talking about a considerably more virulent disease than we are with Covid/flu and the like. Not sure about the others, but the 'R' number for measles is insanely high if unchecked.

For that reason, your logic for suggesting lower vaccine take-up will reduce the likelihood of measures like vaccine passports seems circular and unconvincing; more realistic by far to look at their likelihood through the lens of what will make the majority of the population (as demonstrated in that opinion poll) consider themselves safe to go out.

I do believe that the fewer people that are able or willing to show a vaccine passport (whether because they don't meet the conditions, or they decide they just don't like that sort of thing) then the less likely they are to take off. Yes, one could take a vaccine and have a principled stand that they would never have a vaccine passport anyway - and good for them if they did - but at this point that's not going to show up in any stats.

Also, these polls remind me of those that were around when smoking in pubs was banned. Lots of people who didn't usually go to pubs said 'oh, yes, I'd go to pubs if only smoking was banned.' Smoking was banned, most of those people still didn't actually go to the pubs after all, and lots of pubs ended up becoming uneconomical. (Whether you agree with the smoking ban or not - that is exactly what happened).

 

[WelshBluebird]

Well these kind of things aren't exactly day to day events, and given the nature of them its understandable that ID is asked for. Renting a home or opening a bank account isn't really comparable to going for a pint or a curry afterwards.

I'm not saying ID shouldn't be asked for. I'm saying that given we have such things that ID is required for, it makes perfect sense to be that we have a government issued ID that isn't blocked off as an option for large groups of people (which is what current reality of a driving license or a passport means). I don't see what has a problem or as a concern as some people here seem to (especially as those people who worry about ID cards already likely have one in the form of a driving license or passport anyway).

 

[MikeWM]

In terms of that, I think it is important to realise that the world we lived in pre COVID was a pretty screwed up one anyway when it came to ID requirements.
You needed ID to do all sorts of things (rent somewhere to live, start a new job, potentially have a pint in the pub etc), but the only official government options (passport and driving license - please don't mention the other schemes, the rest of them are jokes that many places simply do not accept) left out large groups of people.

These are mostly recent requirements, however. I never had to show ID when I started my current job back in the early 2000s, and the last time I rented a flat in the mid 2000s I didn't need to show ID then either. The world still worked perfectly well - some would say better - before all these ID requirements came in.

In the last 5 years I can only recall needing to show ID three times - for a work trip to the USA, to buy a house, and to register with a doctor (and the last of those is a fairly new requirement too, and is itself problematic).

There absolutely is a need IMO for a single government issued ID that can take the place of the current passport / driving license options. Hell if the government go down the voter ID route like they want to (as discussed in another thread) having a free to obtain ID is a must anyway.

Another thing for which there is no logical ID requirement! If they were serious about fraud they would crack down on postal voting, where there are all manner of problems, and not go after personation, which is close to non-extant.

I don't think the government looking into that is a problem, neither is it being digital a problem (its 2021 - everything is digital these days, even railcards - personally I think its a joke the only thing I need to take my wallet with me for these days is for my ID).

It not being a problem for *you* doesn't mean it isn't a potential issue for other people, who for whatever reason don't have, or don't want to use, a smartphone. My railcard is *not* digital, for example, and I continue to use paper tickets. Often paid for in cash

Also I'd suspect the people who don't have either passport or driving licence would be the least likely people on average to have or want a smartphone (or be able to afford one) - though that's just my gut instinct, it would be interesting to see some stats.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm not saying ID shouldn't be asked for. I'm saying that given we have such things that ID is required for, it makes perfect sense to be that we have a government issued ID that isn't blocked off as an option for large groups of people (which is what current reality of a driving license or a passport means). I don't see what has a problem or as a concern as some people here seem to (especially as those people who worry about ID cards already likely have one in the form of a driving license or passport anyway).

At the time of asking I was actually in favour of a national ID scheme, and in all honesty as a passport to public services, an all-in-one ID card for those occasions where ID is justified I actually don't mind the idea with one caveat. That the data be properly secured, that at no time can the data ever be sold / shared with private organisations and that full transparency of data be available to the public (OK so that was three, but whose counting... )

However I never envisaged it being used it in this manner, and as such I remain very uncomfortable with the idea that it be used for anything other than a verification of identity. Once you start getting mission creep into health areas, it starts to pose risks that health might not be the only thing it tracks. Before long you movements might be tracked by it, and even political affiliations, financial status, sexual habits... (The last one might be pushing it mind). I'm sure you get where I'm going with this, and whilst right now it might seem unlikely, 14 months ago did you image we'd be discussing vaccine passports for everyday life?

 

[MikeWM]

At the time of asking I was actually in favour of a national ID scheme, and in all honesty as a passport to public services, an all-in-one ID card for those occasions where ID is justified I actually don't mind the idea with one caveat. That the data be properly secured, that at no time can the data ever be sold / shared with private organisations and that full transparency of data be available to the public (OK so that was three, but whose counting... )

However I never envisaged it being used it in this manner, and as such I remain very uncomfortable with the idea that it be used for anything other than a verification of identity. Once you start getting mission creep into health areas, it starts to pose risks that health might not be the only thing it tracks. Before long you movements might be tracked by it, and even political affiliations, financial status, sexual habits... (The last one might be pushing it mind). I'm sure you get where I'm going with this, and whilst right now it might seem unlikely, 14 months ago did you image we'd be discussing vaccine passports for everyday life?

The latter point is precisely why I was vehemently opposed to Blair's ID cards in the dying days of the 'New Labour' government. The sort of mission creep you describe seemed inevitable to me with those (though admittedly I didn't think of vaccination as being one of the things they'd track).

I don't think it is remotely a coincidence that Blair is one of the driving forces behind the current proposals.

 

[Ediswan]

Requiring ID for accommodation rental, jobs, GPs etc. was all on the back of the 'hostile environment' for immigration.

 

[Bantamzen]

The latter point is precisely why I was vehemently opposed to Blair's ID cards in the dying days of the 'New Labour' government. The sort of mission creep you describe seemed inevitable to me with those (though admittedly I didn't think of vaccination as being one of the things they'd track).

I don't think it is remotely a coincidence that Blair is one of the driving forces behind the current proposals.

You may have a point to be fair. I mean I can see merit to a national ID scheme linked to National Insurance / Health Service numbers, as someone who has worked front line in the past in the public service, and trained to do ID checks, I know how hard it can be for people to gain access to even basic services when they don't drive or hold a passport. So something legislated to be no more than a universal ID scheme is viable, but as you rightly note it is the politicians that need to be checked.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Just the very idea of going to the shops or going for a quick pint or a meal with friends and being asked if I’ve been vaccinated or not is both ludicrous and horrifying this is even being discussed

 

[Gadget88]

Just the very idea of going to the shops or going for a quick pint or a meal with friends and being asked if I’ve been vaccinated or not is both ludicrous and horrifying this is even being discussed

Dystopian society we are in lead by Boris and Gove.