Covid Passport - In Trepidation

[InBetweenWasp]

Where did you see/read this Rifleman Harris?

[InBetweenWasp]

I’m all for something that enables Sports and Leisure facilities to open up in an economically sustainable way.  If that means needing to prove that you have been vaccinated, have antibodies or have had a recent negative COVID test then I’m fully supportive of it.

What’s the point in opening up the likes of the Ricoh and having to open most of the stadium to only allow a fraction of punters in.  The same goes for Cinemas, Bars, Pubs, Restaurants, Theatres etc etc...

Presumably, the easiest way to do it and avoid fraud will be to have a centralised system tied to your NHS number/GOV ID that validates your status as having one of the three.  Upon entering a venue you give your photo proof of ID (like a Passport/Driving Licence although presumably RossM is still clutching his paper licence and doesn’t have a passport because they don’t want or need a photo one nor will they ever ) to validate you are who you say you are, then venue does a look-up and you’re either allowed in or not.

That way, anti-Vaxxers who test negative or millennials who are yet to be vaccinated but can show antibodies/negative tests are allowed additional freedoms.

In principle, seems like a sensible way to manage risk and it’ll likely become evident pretty quickly with they become super-spreading type events or are low-risk.

[Rossm]

Oi, InBetweenWasp. All I said was 'I don't have a smart phone and don't want one'. I didn't know they are obligatory! As for everything else - you've made that up.

[Rifleman Harris]

Where did you see/read this Rifleman Harris?

The 10% comes from an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and is peer reviewed.  The 30% figure is from, as yet non-peer reviewed, data published by AZ...admittedly they say it reduces transmission by 2/3rds, but when I heard this it was presented as I wrote it. 67% is a much more positive way of saying the same thing, so I guess I fell for the negative spin.

I think the point is, a Covid Passport is liable to need to change as circumstances change and large cohorts may find themselves suddenly excluded when they aren't now. Practically it could be difficult to administer.

I had the AZ vaccine and am happy with it.

[InBetweenWasp]

Oi, InBetweenWasp. All I said was 'I don't have a smart phone and don't want one'. I didn't know they are obligatory! As for everything else - you've made that up.

Hopefully it was obvious it was tongue-in-cheek although it does raise the point of should we always work to the lowest common denominator just because someone doesn’t want one. 

[Rossm]

Oi, InBetweenWasp. All I said was 'I don't have a smart phone and don't want one'. I didn't know they are obligatory! As for everything else - you've made that up.

Hopefully it was obvious it was tongue-in-cheek although it does raise the point of should we always work to the lowest common denominator just because someone doesn’t want one.

Well it wasn't obviously 'tongue in cheek' to me. I read somewhere that approx 20% of the UK population does not possess a smart phone though that is no reason to not have digital covid passports if they are considered workable.

PS. My dumb phone is on a contract with unlimited calls to 01, 02, 03 and 07 numbers (I think that is all) and unlimited texts and it costs me £6/month and I only have to charge it approx once a fortnight. Sweet.

[InBetweenWasp]

Where did you see/read this Rifleman Harris?

The 10% comes from an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine and is peer reviewed.  The 30% figure is from, as yet non-peer reviewed, data published by AZ...admittedly they say it reduces transmission by 2/3rds, but when I heard this it was presented as I wrote it. 67% is a much more positive way of saying the same thing, so I guess I fell for the negative spin.

I think the point is, a Covid Passport is liable to need to change as circumstances change and large cohorts may find themselves suddenly excluded when they aren't now. Practically it could be difficult to administer.

I had the AZ vaccine and am happy with it.

Thanks - so if I’m interpreting the NEMJ Article correctly [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2102214] (and there’s a good chance I’m not), despite only 10% efficacy against mild-to-moderate infection from the South African variant, there were zero cases of Hospitalisation - 1011 participants were given the vaccine.

I think it’s easy to be misled by advertised efficacy rates.  There’s a great video that’s worth well 7-minutes of peoples time that looks at why you can’t compare then by their published efficacy rates:

https://youtu.be/K3odScka55A

It has a leaning towards the one-shot J&J vaccine which the Mayor of Detroit refused to take delivery of, telling people that Pfizer and Moderna were the gold standard and the J&J one only had an efficacy rate of 67% - The video breaks down why this doesn’t make sense and why, once you scratch underneath the efficacy rate, it doesn’t really matter which vaccine you have.

[westwaleswasp]

I was reading a couple of articles recently on the chance of a third wave from the SPI-M modelling- spoiler- it is likely, regardless of the vaccination, and the modelling allows for a number of scenarios, but we are looking at a spike in time for next season, which is worrying for the game. Whether passports happen or not I do not know, but there will likely be some restrictions throughout 2021, even when/if everything opens, it won't be as before.
 

[InBetweenWasp]

I was reading a couple of articles recently on the chance of a third wave from the SPI-M modelling- spoiler- it is likely, regardless of the vaccination, and the modelling allows for a number of scenarios, but we are looking at a spike in time for next season, which is worrying for the game. Whether passports happen or not I do not know, but there will likely be some restrictions throughout 2021, even when/if everything opens, it won't be as before.

Yeah, definitely worrying that the common denominator seems to be seasonal more than environmental - Other than the likes of Australia/NZ, it seems to be that regardless of whether a country has been largely locked down (UK/Israel) or more widely opened up (US/Sweden) that these spikes all co-incide with approaching Winter.  Mind you, that doesn’t really explain the current spike on the continent.

[InBetweenWasp]

Oi, InBetweenWasp. All I said was 'I don't have a smart phone and don't want one'. I didn't know they are obligatory! As for everything else - you've made that up.

Hopefully it was obvious it was tongue-in-cheek although it does raise the point of should we always work to the lowest common denominator just because someone doesn’t want one.

Well it wasn't obviously 'tongue in cheek' to me. I read somewhere that approx 20% of the UK population does not possess a smart phone though that is no reason to not have digital covid passports if they are considered workable.

PS. My dumb phone is on a contract with unlimited calls to 01, 02, 03 and 07 numbers (I think that is all) and unlimited texts and it costs me £6/month and I only have to charge it approx once a fortnight. Sweet.

I apologise then as I’d assumed the tongue-out smiley might have signalled it was meant jokingly.  You’re right though, approx 16% of the UK population over 16 doesn’t have a smart-phone from a study last year.  Looking at the stats, like you it seems to be a choice rather than a cost issue, as those without are very heavily skewed to age demographics:

- 23% of those 55-64 don’t have a smart phone
- 47% of those 65+ don’t have a smart phone

https://www.finder.com/uk/mobile-internet-statistics

In some ways, that’s genuinely a shame.  My 98 year-old Great Great Uncle has an iPad and iPhone, he uses it to be able to keep in touch with the Family via WhatsApp and see what has been going on, as well as to FaceTime his Great Great Great Nieces.  He also speaks to them on the phone and they write to each other in the old fashioned way but this allows him to keep in touch in-the-moment and he can do so as/when he pleases.  Similarly, my Nan before she passed away, used her iPad and iPhone for similar reasons

He also has an Amazon Echo which he uses to tell him the news, play the radio and various other bits of music that he likes and if his mobility worsens we can connect up to his heating, or lighting enabling him to switch on/off things or turn the heating up (or off) without having to move about the house. 

There’s some genuinely useful things for the 65+ that smart phones can be used for, it’s not all about Social Media.

It doesn’t mean you should get one, of course, as it’s a personal preference but once people see that they’re actually quite simple to use and can have some good uses those elderly family members that we’ve taken the time to show and help set phones up have seen the other side and been able to use it augment their social mobility and interactions with their family and friends.

[wasps]

I've been assuming that the only important numbers are the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths.
Number of infections seems largely irrelevant if they don't lead to hospitalisation / death.


There can be another wave, and large numbers of people can get infected, but providing that doesn't lead to a significant increase in hospitalisations and therefore not adding pressure to the NHS etc, then it's comparatively ok, isn't it?

After all, people get ill, that's part of life. What we need to do is ensure that livelihoods and infrastructure aren't overly affected.

[Tervueren]

I've been assuming that the only important numbers are the numbers of hospitalisations and deaths.
Number of infections seems largely irrelevant if they don't lead to hospitalisation / death.


There can be another wave, and large numbers of people can get infected, but providing that doesn't lead to a significant increase in hospitalisations and therefore not adding pressure to the NHS etc, then it's comparatively ok, isn't it?

After all, people get ill, that's part of life. What we need to do is ensure that livelihoods and infrastructure aren't overly affected.

However, there is some evidence emerging of longer term effects of being infected, whether or not severely enough to be hospitalised.

[Peej]

But you can't run the NHS with the risk of a transmissible virus in the air. Because otherwise immune-vulnerable people run the risk of catching it, as do staff. So as long as it's somewhere, it has the potential to be everywhere.

I think CP passports are more contentious (though as others have highlighted some of these - personal date etc - are rather spurious given what Google, Amazon and Facebook know about us), and also obviously are skewed towards those who have had the vaccine. That said, I would have no issue requiring one and producing it.

In my view the answer is what it's always been - testing. Actual effective, widespread, efficient testing that enables those who are not asymptomatic or carrying the virus to be identified and then isolate, and those are free from it or are vaccinated to just crack on.

We cannot go back to 2019 "normal" - so we have to adapt. I think regular testing will be a part of that in the short term.