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.

Vaccine Passports ‘Scrapped’ and Forced Jab for NHS Staff Consultation – Outlining the Plan

Introduction

The UK Government announced on the 12 September that vaccine passports will not currently be going ahead, contradicting previous statements that they would be introduced for nightclubs and big events this month. Instead, on the 9th September, a consultation was launched regarding forcing frontline NHS staff to have the Covid injection. This article will discuss both aspects, and possible linkages between the two.

The Vaccine Passport

Let’s begin with the vaccine passport. I have put a lot of emphasis on the vaccine passport in previous articles, arguing that the vaccine passport is the key short term aim of the entire Covid Narrative. On the surface, the decision to scrap vaccine passports disproves my arguments. In reality, however, it does not contradict my argument for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that the government has been forced to backtrack. Vaccine passports are extremely unpopular with the British public. While polling organisations such as Yougov claim that a large percentage of the public support vaccine passports, these polls are more about manufacturing consent for the policy than recording facts. All indications, both in my personal life and on social media, as well as among many affected business owners, indicate vaccine passports are unpopular. The issue of vaccine passports has also angered many people who supported or were neutral towards lockdowns, and/or have had the jabs.

There have also been large demonstrations against vaccine passports. The monthly events in London – although focusing on all aspects of the Covid Narrative – have recently been advertised primarily as anti vaccine passport. There have also been massive demonstrations in countries that have already introduced the vaccine passport, such as France. Australia – one of the most draconian countries when it comes to restrictions allegedly to ‘control the pandemic’ – is also starting to kick off.

All of this makes it much harder for the British government to introduce the passport.

The second point demonstrating that passports are still essential to the government’s thinking is that the policy is not being abandoned. They have been forced into retreat by resistance to the policy but have explicitly said that it is not being ruled out. Sajid Javid stated that:

We’ve looked at it properly and, whilst we should keep it in reserve as a potential option, I’m pleased to say that we will not be going ahead with plans for vaccine passports.

To translate from government speak, this means that vaccine 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.

Forcing NHS Staff to Get ‘Vaccinated’: The Next Step

A few months ago, the government announced that people working in care homes have to be ‘fully vaccinated’ (both shots of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine) or face being sacked. Staff have to have had their first vaccine by September 16. The next step for the government is to try and force NHS staff to have the jab, but this will be a harder nut to crack than care home staff, which explians why care home staff were forced first.

According to the Skills for Care website, care home staff were paid an average of £8.50 an hour during 2019/20 and 73% were paid below the Living Wage. The gross income of this wage (assuming a 37.5 hour work week) is £16,575. However, even the lowest ranked NHS staff (a Band 2 member of staff who has worked in the NHS for less than 2 years) recieved a gross income of £17,652 in 2019/20 for the 37.5 hours a week. When you start to get into the higher pay bands you start seeing people who have significant economic resources to oppose forced vaccines. Again using the 2019/20 data for comparison, experienced Band 7 staff take home £43,772, whereas Band 8 staff take home between £44,606 and £86,687 depending on whether they are in subgroup a, b, c or d and their level of experience.

Relatively high unionisation in the NHS may also be a factor in the government’s thinking, although I would not trust the unions to fight the forced vaccines given their complicity in the Covid Narrative.

There are still a non-negligible number of staff that haven’t been jabbed:

According to the DHSC, around 92% of NHS trust staff have received one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, with 88% of staff having received both doses.

However, the DHSC says new data shows uptake rates between NHS trusts can vary from around 78% to 94% for both doses.

Gievn how many people the NHS employs this is a lot of people and statistically some of them are likely to have economic resources. NHS staff can also serve as a test case for future vaccine mandates for this reason.

There is currently a degree of ambiguity about the government’s plan, as to whether it will be just for frontline staff, or for all NHS staff including clerical and management. The consultation on forced jabs seems to imply the plan is only for clinical staff (if this is the case, I believe that the plan will be for two stages, perhaps to avoid taking on too many staff at once) but the media seem to imply that the jabs will be forced on all staff.

Forced jabs will help the government achieve its vaccine passport goals. While some people who are injected oppose vaccine passports, every person who gets jabbed makes it easier for the government to introduce the policy. ‘The unvaccinated’ have no choice but to resist a vaccine passport policy through boycotting and subversion, but ‘the vaccinated’ can choose to comply. Many people – even if formally opposed to vaccine passports – may buckle if they are actually introduced.

Conclusion

The government cannot tolerate more than a very small number opting out of the vaccine passport digital control matrix. Some people will buckle and get the injection if they are threatened with not being able to feed their family. This increases the percentage of the population who are injected. Some people will hold the line and lose their jobs, becoming the excluded in the new medical apartheid.

Appendix: Filling out the Consultation

If you want to fill out the government consultation it can be found here. It closes on the 22nd of October 2021. As you cannot see the questions in advance as it is a click through consultation rather than one where all the questions are up front. I will outline the questions that are asked and the parameters of the responses.

The consultation asks if you would prefer if a doctor or nurse treating you has the Covid 19 and flu vaccines. Then it asks if you think healthcare staff should be forced to have the vaccines for Covid and flu and to justify your answers. You are limited to 500 words for the justification which makes it a bit difficult as there isn’t enough words to quote from scientific studies on the dangers of the jabs. The same question is then asked for those under 18 in the sector. The study asks about possible negative effects on protected classes and then how the government can encourage uptake in non regulated roles.

Here are some key points you could raise if you decide to fill in the consultation:

In terms of staff being forced:

  • The jabs don’t stop people catching or spreading Sars-Cov-2 (according to the manufacturers themselves), so staff having the jab cannot protect patients. Patients can still catch the virus from a ‘fully vaccinated’ member of staff.
  • Sacking NHS staff for not taking the jab will put patients more at risk through causing/increasing understaffing, meaning overworked doctors and nurses making preventable errors and patients not being seen.
  • Forced jabs ignore the issue of natural immunity. Many NHS staff will have had the virus and recovered giving them extremely potent antibodies against Sars-Cov-2 and these antibodies protect against ‘variants’ according to the scientific evidence. Making them have a vaccine is medically irrational.
  • The horrific side effects of the jab. I personally cited the titles of two articles on myocarditis due to space limitations, as well as the massive amount of reports to Yellow Card and VAERS.
  • It’s still in clinical trials.
  • It violates already existing NHS contracts.

In terms of protected classes:

  • This refers to the Equality Act 2010. There are three protected classes negatively affected.
  • Disability: although the consultation allows medical exemptions, forced jabs will cause unnecessary stress for disabled staff. Due to the obsession with jabbing the entire population and GPs being entirely focused on Covid, it will likely be extremely difficult for those with even a legitimate reason for exemption (such as someone with a history of blood clots when they admit the jabs can cause blood clots) to obtain an exemption in practise.
  • Pregnancy and Maternity: Women will be concerned about the lack of studies on pregnancy and the jab, especially given that the Yellow Card system and VAERS have multiple miscarriages reported after the injections.
  • Religion and Belief: There is no provision made in the proposals for religious exemptions. This is discrimination based on religion if someone declined the vaccine due to religious beliefs, for example a belief that genetic engineering is morally wrong due to ‘playing God’. THere may be other beliefs that could be protected, for example, some have argued that ethical vegans would have to be classed as exempt due to the fact that the vaccine has had some animal trials.

Edited to add: Lo and Behold, the government have proven me correct once again. They have just launched a new consultation on “Proposal for mandatory COVID certification in a Plan B scenario: call for evidence”.

The document says:

We are asking for responses by 11 October, although we encourage stakeholders to submit views as quickly as possible in case there is need to introduce certification, as part of Plan B, at short notice.

The COVID-19 Response: Autumn and Winter Plan 2021, published on 14 September, sets out the government’s aims to sustain the progress made and prepare the country for future challenges, while ensuring the National Health Service (NHS) does not come under unsustainable pressure during this period. If the data suggests the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure, the government has prepared a Plan B for England.

So, in other words, they will cook up some nonsense Neil Ferguson model as an excuse to bring this in.