Government Not Scrapping Vaccine Passports: New ‘Plan B’ for ‘Mandatory COVID Certification’

Introduction

A few weeks ago the government announced that they would not be going ahead with a plan for vaccine passports over the winter period. As vaccine passports are the most important aspect of this whole Covid agenda (in the short term at least) this was a setback for the government. However, they are now planning another way to get ‘COVID Certification’ through the door – the idea of the ‘winter emergency’.

A New Government Consultation

I said the following in my previous article:

[V]accine passports will be back, perhaps in October or November when the flu season hits. When the issue of antibody dependent enhancement – vaccination worsening clinical disease due to non neutralising antibodies – hits the vaccinated (or simply (un)known side effects from MRNA jabs), this will be the next opportunity for another vaccine passport push. Lockdowns will inevitably be introduced to combat the ‘new variant’ of vaccine induced disease, with Johnson stating that the only way out is vaccine passports.

Lo and behold, the government has announced a new consultation called “Proposal for mandatory COVID certification in a Plan B scenario: call for evidence”. This outlines an alleged ’emergency’ scenario implemented if ‘the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure’. Of course, being as the NHS comes under significant pressure every flu season, combined with the massive backlog of medical issues the NHS refused to treat because they aren’t Covid, the NHS will be under ‘unsustainable pressure’ by definition. As previously mentioned, antibody dependent enhancement and vaccine side effects will come into play as well, meaning a much worse flu season than normal.

This will give them their excuse to ‘reluctantly’ introduce ‘temporary’ ‘Covid Certification’ to ‘protect the NHS’ from patients.

This Plan B means that:

Under Plan B, in certain settings:

mandatory vaccine-only certification could be introduced for all visitors aged 18 or over

members of the workforce aged 18 or over in these settings could then be required to test regularly, if they are not fully vaccinated

This document specifies what precisely the government plan is. In this document, the government is trying to sell the vaccine passport via blackmail, essentially telling buisness owners that their choices are to accept vaccine passports or be plunged back into lockdown.

These are the venues that the government wishes to force the vaccine passport upon:

all nightclubs and other venues open after 1am with alcohol, music and dancing

indoor events with 500 or more attendees where those attendees are likely to stand and mix to a significant degree, or move around during the event, such as music venues or large receptions

outdoor, crowded settings with 4,000 or more attendees where those attendees are likely to stand, or move around during the event, such as outdoor festivals

any settings with 10,000 or more attendees, such as large sports and music stadia

In other words, this is essentially the same plan that Sajid Javid said was not going to be introduced over the winter, repackaged as a new ’emergency’ plan. Of course the government then adds that it may be expanded beyond these settings.

They also add this further comment which is worthy of note:

At present, the NHS COVID Pass displays an individual’s COVID status on the basis of vaccine, test or natural immunity status. If mandatory certification were introduced, the NHS COVID Pass would switch so that it certified individuals based on vaccine status only.

In other words, natural immunity is irrelevant according to this government. This scientifically illiterate argument is basically stating that Sars-Cov-2 is a unique virus where natural immunity does not apply – obviously demonstrating that this plan is not about ‘the science’ but about ‘the politics’.

Filling out the Consultation

If you want to fill out the consultation, you only have until the 11th October to do so.

The consultation asks for information about you and who you are including age, ‘gender’ (in a biology denial sense) etc.

It then asks if you think the list of settings is too broad or too narrow. If you click ‘too broad’ it then asks you which settings should be excluded (150 words). Obviously just say all of them and bring up the usual arguments against vaccine passports:

  • Authoritarian
  • Abrogate informed consent by applying coercion
  • create a two tier society
  • are scientifically illiterate as ‘the vaccinated’ can still spread Covid

Then it asks you if you would prefer if people going to events are vaccinated or not, similar to the question on the forced jabs for NHS staff consultation.

The questions then ask whether you think people (first visitors and then staff) should be forced to take an injection. Obviously you can tick strongly disagree to both. However the next two questions assume that you already support the policy in their framing, and are ridiculously biased. The first asks whether ‘unvaccinated’ staff members should be supervised while taking Covid tests, and the second asks whether only customer facing roles should be forced to jab/test or all roles. There’s no option for ‘no-one should be forced to jab/test’. The last bit on the page then asks for your further comments.

  • Staff would be pressured by bosses to get the jabs to avoid testing and having to self-isolate/not being able to work at these events. This means they would not be taking a vaccine under free and informed consent should they get vaccinated to stop the pressure
  • Side effects of the jab & liability for these side effects
  • Increased chance of workplace harassment due to jabbed staff having to deal with unjabbed staff not being able to work due to false positives.
  • Jab status would have to be disclosed to the employer
  • Do not work as you can get Covid off a fully vaccinated person
  • Ignore natural immunity

It then asks you if you think more groups should be exempt. According to their list children and people with a relevant medical conditions are exempt. I mean technically, yes, as I think everyone should be exempt. I stated as such and also that the policy breaches the Equality Act 2010 by ignoring religion, belief, and pregnancy protected classes.

The consultation then asks if any protected classes will benefit and if any will be disadvantaged.

  • No-one will benefit from an authoritarian ‘papers please’ dystopia.
  • You can still get Sars-Cov-2 from the ‘fully vaccinated’ so claiming that this policy benefits elderly or disabled people by decreasing their risk is wrong.
  • It will disadvantage disabled people due to forcing them to prove a medical exemption that may not be granted due to the climate of ‘vaccine good no matter what’.
  • It will disadvantage pregnant women who may not want the vaccine due to effect on the child.
  • It will disadvantage those with a religion/belief exemption.
  • All these groups will be treated as second class employees/citizens.

It then asks for any final thoughts on the consultation, and following this, how you felt about the consultation process and how they could improve, so I told them to ditch the loaded questions.

Conclusion

As predicted, the government is not scrapping the idea of vaccine passports, but merely attempting to bring them in via the inevitable ‘NHS winter emergency’ and they have already created the basis for this with a new consultation on the policy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s