Today we’re publishing a debate about the pros and cons of immunity passports between Dr. Alberto Giubilini, a Senior Research Fellow in the Oxford Philosophy Faculty, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. If any readers would like to participate in this debate, please send your contributions to lockdownsceptics@gmail.com and we’ll publish a round-up in a few days’ time.
Here is an extract from Dr. Giubilini’s contribution:
There are many people among the most vulnerable to COVID-19 who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. These would be exempted from passport requirements – medical exemptions are normally applied where vaccine mandates are in place. Besides, there are many people in the most vulnerable groups who, even if they have been vaccinated, are not protected, given that vaccines are not 100% effective. We need to maximize the chances of protecting these people as far as is reasonably possible. (Which excludes lockdown. These are unreasonable measures.)
Their freedom to have a normal life, to travel, to go to public spaces, to socialise – in other words, their fundamental freedoms (the very same ones that lockdown denies) – presuppose that they are able do all these things as safely as possible. If I am an unvaccinated vulnerable person and I have reason to think very few people in my local pub or in my community are vaccinated, in an important sense I am not free to go to the pub or to the shops. (I would only be free in a legal sense, but that is not the kind of freedom that matters the most.) Doing that would mean taking on quite a large risk (I am in a vulnerable group after all), and that would be true even if I am vaccinated (vaccines are not 100% effective, after all).
Because my liberty matters and arguably the state has a responsibility to protect it as much as is reasonably possible, I can reasonably expect some safeguards to be in place to guarantee that it is safe for me to do all these things.
An immunity passport scheme can offer some extra level of protection to vulnerable people by significantly reducing the chances of transmission without all the costs of lockdown. Vaccines might not be as effective at preventing transmission as they are at preventing disease, but even a reduction of risk can be important.
And here is an extract from Dr. Bhattacharya’s reply:
Vaccine hesitancy among those most susceptible to severe outcomes after Covid infection (primarily the elderly) is the key public health problem at this point in the epidemic. Age is the most important risk factor for severe Covid infection outcomes; there is a thousand-fold difference between the mortality risk faced by the oldest individuals and the youngest after infection. A comprehensive meta-analysis of seroprevalence studies published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation finds that people aged 70 and over have a 95% infection survival rate. In comparison, people under 70 have a 99.95% infection survival rate.
In the U.S., more than 80% of the elderly population has already received one vaccine dose (of the two shot regimens), and 70% are fully vaccinated. It has been difficult for states to move that fraction higher for various reasons, but perceived doubts about the vaccine’s safety features prominently among the explanation. While the adenovirus vaccines have triggered a safety signal in younger populations that have led regulatory agencies to issue black box warnings, there have been no safety problems established for these vaccines in the older population. But the issue is one of perceived safety rather than actual safety.
To that specific population that is already largely distrustful of public health authorities (and with much good reason given their manifest failures during this pandemic), the imposition of immunity passports will have the paradoxical effect of reducing vaccine demand. A certain kind of person, over-represented in the vaccine-hesitant group, will respond to an immunity passport requirement by wondering why, if the vaccine is so great, public health authorities and businesses are coercing him to get it? I confess that I have had this thought, even though I have read the vaccine trial data closely, think that the vaccines are great, recommended vaccination strongly to my older friends and family members, and am fully vaccinated myself. Worse, there is the distinct possibility that the distrust of public health created by Covid immunity passports will foster further erosion of the popular support for other vaccines such as the MMR vaccine that protects against measles, mumps, and rubella. If this occurs, it would be a disaster from a public health perspective.
The debate is very much worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
No, No, No, No, NO – completely misses the point. In a free and democratic society, where one has the control and choice over one’s own body and person this should not even be debated.
As far as I am concerned I will fight tooth and nail if they try to enforce any type of medical/health passport on me. My health and my body is my business not the fucking state’s – Irrespective of whether or not I could or would be deemed vulnerable.
“My health and my body is my business not the fucking state’s”
N’H’S and Income Taxes (VAT, Employee NI, Employer NI, Income tax) say otherwise.
If you want to enslave yourself then be my guest. NHS – vs Private medical insurance/ Income tax – no direct correlation to my health or body/ ditto NI.
I’m in no way in favour of either (seeing the NHS as deadly to the nation’s health and income taxes deadly to the nation’s wealth creation) and would immediately scrap both the NHS and the above taxes if given a chance.
My point is this.. these disasters happened before most were even born.
I don’t see the connection between the NHS and vaccine passports, or health choices in general. You can argue whether the NHS is a sensible way for a country to arrange healthcare for itself, and I am sure there are good arguments on both side. But the point is we pay for it so it fixes us when we get sick. Now you could argue that it might justifiably spend some money “nudging” people to be less self-destructive, health-wise, but that’s miles away from coercing people into medical treatment.
“But the point is we pay for it so it fixes us when we get sick”
Sadly that used to be the case. The last year has proved that despite our continued obligation to pay for the NHS service, it has shown no reverse obligation to provide any sort of service. In fact, hundreds of thousands are likely to die because of their negligence.
Well said. I have various problems: heart – 5 months to see a cardilogist: hip and knee (already waited over a year) – 15 months to merely SPEAK to an orthopaedic consultant: hysterectomy – twice cancelled with no further date issued. Various other procedures cancelled. I am increasingly immobile and always in pain, and it’s easier to break into a bank vault than to get into a surgery, and when you do, you are treated with suspicion and a “what do you think you’re doing, coming here?” look. Yet those same people will happily mingle with the general public in a crowded supermarket.
The sight of nurses and other medical staff dancing in hospital corridors is an abiding memory for me; the time those videos took to film plus the time it took to teach them the steps could surely have been spent more productively? Or if they really were under severe pressure of work, perhaps a lie-down would have been more appropriate?
We should have seen, years ago, that spending any spare money on private medical insurance would have been wise. We had plenty of warnings with growing waiting lists, foreign nationals flying in for their free treatment etc.
It is nothing to do with Income tax etc and the Nuremberg code confirms, albeit in slightly different language, that it is none of their fucking business.
Taxes have nothing to do with “my health, my body.”
Right on!
Aside from your very valid point which I completely agree with did I miss something? Where was the consideration that there could be a set of people who do not feel the NEED to be vaccinated because they have already had Covid19 and therefore have better immunity than even those with a vaccine and represent NO DANGER TO ANYONE? I find the passport concept and everything associated with it abhorrent but if anyone should be given a passport to move freely in society surely it ought to be those who have had covid with suitable T cell testing to support that.
This is the big point. In both the quotes chosen above, natural immunity is ignored.
The whole point of Pfizer etc’s plan has been, from the start, to abolish the concept of natural immunity, and replace it with highly profitable, highly controlling, Pharma immunity. To that end they will sacrifice even children.
We are past debate. Debate will alter nothing.
Absolutely. Two days after I’d had a positive antibody blood-test for covid Boris banned the tests. The pharmacy was threatened with closure if they continued with them. They said he was afraid we would stop wearing masks if we knew we’d had it…!
We have far greater immunity than we could possibly get from the vaccine, and I’ve seen from my research that it’s thought that T-cell immunity can last up to 17 years. Also I read somewhere else that if we have the vaccine after we’ve had the virus, the vaccine may start attacking our T-cells.
That fool Boris was vaccinated post-covid to persuade us we must have it regardless. My MP did the same and was very ill after it and I told him it served him right – it was totally self-inflicted.
Yet NOBODY is talking about this! Money, money, money. As always, follow the money.
This government will not easily give up their favourite weapon of fear, that the Covid pandemic has afforded them to spead fear throughout the nation. FEAR explained is False Evidence Appearing Real and is a very effective tool to convince those who accept the propaganda in the national media without question.
Neither of them appear to recognise the fact that the ‘vaccines’ do not confer immunity or stop spread of the infection rendering a ‘vaccine passport’ null and void.
Exactly.
And if anything, only the vaxxed can be asymptomatically infectious and present such a danger.
If anyone still needed to be tested, it’s the vaxxed (I am against any invasive testing, see below).
Even the German Amtsaerzte agree with that assessment.
If you are sick, stay at home.
If an establishment wants to monitor for that, take the temperature.
That’s all that is necessary and ethically permissible.
This!!! They can bleat on all they like, but the “vaccines” do not give immunity! What then is the point? Apart form of course, what is absolutely obvious to those paying attention!
Yes! Very disappointed in Dr. B. There are so many important and fundamental reasons to oppose vaccine passports and his concern is all about “vaccine hesitancy.”
Absolutely, and they actually say that on the NHS leaflets encouraging their use. The whole idea of ‘passports’ is being done by those who deliberately ignore the facts. It proves nothing about your state of well being, or any risk to a third party.
If you are vulnerable and unvaccinated the logical conclusion on this basis is that you are a danger to others. An exemption is nothing more than a legal fudge. The only moral position is to be against passports.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKwhZu2x5iA
This is a must watch/translate.
Any British ENT specialist should be able to produce and the same.
Shame on them that they didn’t sofar.
This German doctor explains very understandably that and why the nasal swabs performed for the tests are very dangerous and that they constitute a criminal deriliction of duty and GBH as performed currently (or result in absolutely useless probes and results).
Stop them NOW!
Refuse them!
That testing is no alternative to the Apartheid passports.
Ditch BOTH!
Perhaps I missed it but I’m surprised Toby has not mentioned that yesterday the German Government passed into law provisions for a Vaccine Freedom Passport which will exempt the vaccinated (and Covid Survivors) from curfews, contact restrictions and quarantines when returning from abroad.
What it will really do of course is create a two tier society in which those who choose not to be vaccinated will have their freedoms severely curtailed.
I think I’ve heard something like this in history, I think it was in Germany coincidentally… 🤔
Vax Macht Frei.
The veil has now been lifted on Oxford University. It is something really very ugly, as an institution. Now when I hear or see “Oxford University” (and its doppelganger Cambridge isn’t far behind), I regard it as completely untrustworthy, worthy of no respect and I think the whole ideology and culture of the place is a symptom of the real disease, the one which has brought us Covid1984.
In general I rather thought Cambridge was more woke/progressive than Oxford.
That may be so but they each produce a sizeable portion of the vermin that shapes this place and look at what we’ve got thanks to them, it’s vile. This country was a half decent place pre 9/11, now it is an Orwellian cesspit, and these are some of the institutions that have helped to create this mess, proud sponsors and suppliers of the spiritually dead proponents of the corporate-cultural nosedive into modern Britain and all its crappy features. The kind of intelligence these institutions cherish is Ungraded in my world, they worship at the altar of corporate filth. This is why the Tommy Robinsons and Bill Gates of this world feel so at home there.
Huh??
Eh? What on earth can Bill Gates and Tommy Robinson possibly have in common? Are you wise??
Photo-finish!
You have a completely warped concept of what ‘Oxford’ is ( and ‘Cambridge’). It’s a vastly more complex institution than you have grasped.
Leave barmy generalised hyperbole to Covidiots.
Carl Heneghan is Oxford based.
And so are the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists that are still veiled in secrecy
My liberty does not end where your fear begins: Dr. Giubilini’s reasoning is alien to a liberal democracy.
Fundamentally, the general risk of contegion is one which we all must accept for a free society to fucntion. If you do not accept it you are welcome to absent yourself from society, but you cannot demand to enter a risk-free area in order to socialise – because such a place does not exist. If you drive to a cinema you are increasing the risk to others around you but that doesn’t mean you can’t drive. All the people who have driven there have increased each others risk, but that’s just an accepted risk of traveling to and using the cinema.
If this is to be the way, whole societies revolving around the ‘vulnerable’ (which I think is completely unsustainable) then it’s not unreasonable to expect such people to be required to take steps to reduce their vulnerability, eg lose excess weight.
I really resent having such ‘vulnerability’ used as a lever to control me; and what is ‘vulnerability’ anyway? Is reaching extreme old age a reason for curbing and controlling much younger people just starting out in life?
This is something that really needs to be discussed widely, not just by random medics or politicians using it as a blunt instrument.
It’s all so reminiscent of the woke bullsh1t.
Without wishing to be flippant I recently saw on YouTube a documentary showing that a kangaroo being chased by a predator will, as a last resort, eject its joey from its pouch leaving it to face certain death.
The Darwinian explanation being that ‘it’s just another joey but the mother would survive and be able to produce several more’.
That is more understandable from a survival of the species point of view than what we are doing.
We are well on the way to the other extreme, a society unable to function because it is wallowing in a morass of sentimentality; what happens to the ‘vulnerable’ then?
What happened to the comments section of Lockdown Skeptics? There used to be a thousand comments by this time of day earlier this year. When the format was changed I no longer received daily links to this site and I have had a difficult time getting back here since then.
I dunno, ask the editors.
The problem with a daily ‘ roundup’ (which of itself is good imho) followed by several more detailed articles during the day is that many readers go straight to the latest piece only and the general conversation just starts over again.
Most of the more detailed articles are not particularly startling or original and could, again in my opinion, be left to the following days roundup.
Something like “Johnson sacks Hancock, refers SAGE to the DPP and resigns” would be worthy of a special entry.
Well under COVID rules the chased kangaroo would be bed-ridden with hours to live and drop about 1000 healthy kangaroos out of its “pounch” for predation.
There several things here: 1) One cannot deny ones most basic personal liberties, like living life normally and choosing not to get vaccinated or breathing without a barrier/mask, in order to guaranty safety of someone else or that very person. It’s not like safety regulations making sure that scaffolding wont fall on a pedestrian or workers. These are humans we are talking about, not inanimate objects. Making scaffolding more tighter is not the same as forcing a vaccine on a human being who doesn’t want to take it. 2) This is not an unprecedented disease, not even a bit (it might have even been around the world since autumn 2019 causing no excess deaths). Also, many people already had it (immunity heard threshold is lower due to pre-existing immunity), the pandemic is over (regardless of vaccination). 3) Vaccine pose a bigger danger than c19 at this stage, especially to younger people. How can you coerce younger people to take something which might damage them or kill them in order to make older people feel more safe (years of life lost is important here). It is extremely unethical to force someone to take a damaging treatment for a proclaimed “public good”.… Read more »
Why was this not done for TB / AIDS etc in the past?
Why now?
Or Flu???
They did more sensible things for TB like isolation control and Isolation Hospitals.
Isolation should perhaps join the list of bastardised words as a result of lockdown propaganda (along with ‘offered’ which now means cajoled).
Didn’t have the all encompassing tech. Now they do, and want to use it.
Dr. Giubilini is a communist idiot.
Expecting the majority of a population to sacrifice their freedom of movement- at the risk of their own health – so that a minority can essentially ‘feel better about going to the pub’ is utter horse shit.
Giubilini starts off by swallowing the imbecilic, anti-common sense insanity about healthy people being a ‘threat’ to other people’s health, because, despite all empirical evidence, he believes that these people can somehow harbour a novel type of “virus” that bizarrely, is so deadly that you have to be tested in order to know if you have it. Conveniently for the Corona cultists, the “germ” is invisible, the disease is sometimes “asymptomatic” (lol!), and their grotesquely misused PCR test will throw out 90% or more false positives, e.g. by reacting to fragments of dead common cold coronavirus that someone caught months ago. Giubilini also believes the claim that “Covid” is a particularly deadly disease that cannot be compared to the flu, ignoring the fact that even if we accept the claim that it isn’t simply the flu and such a disease actually exists, it certainly has a survival rate on the same order of magnitude of the flu, at around 99.8% minimum. He also believes the unproven claim that experimental gene therapy, in which the unsuspecting lemmings are converted into spike protein producing factories, are somehow less of a threat to the vulnerable, when in fact the spike protein is not… Read more »
What are Doctor Giubilini’s credentials? His medical background? Who supported him during his formative years and who supports him now? Just two years ago a fellow who was subsidized by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in his university years and afterwards (Johnson & Johnson) was appointed to a high position in the Federal Drug Administration (USA). That’s how it’s done. Johns Hopkins, etc. Same. Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates and many others are financial enablers for these kinds of takeovers in public health over the past twenty years.
This will bring segregation to the UK using therapies which reduce symptoms which you may or may not have got. Lucrative overreach, big time.
Can hostages have a “debate” with their kidnappers? Of course not.
This article typically misses the point entirely.
There is absolutely no reason to unleash wholesale oppression, to trash our economy, education system, health service, civil rights and culture, because of a respiratory disease that has an average mortality age of 82 and which presents virtually no risk to healthy people of all ages.
No more lockdown.
No more masks.
No more test and trace.
No more coercive vaccination.
No more Compliance ID.
Why isn’t this site banging the freedom drum?
Yeah, the voices need to get louder and actively coordinate civil disobedience, otherwise it’s going to go South very quickly.
For the past two months I have been watching every season of The Avengers, The Saint, Dangerman (Secret Agent in the USA), The Prisoner and other British TV classics from the early 1960s. I am suggesting to all of you to that if you revisit these programs you will soon discover that almost everything corrupt in this world of ours was already documented/exposed/treated/hinted at in the scripts of these programs. They were warning us of the present dangers and hinting at future, ever more serious dangers. If you are seeking a counter measure to all the propaganda, gaslighting and psychological manipulation that has raining down on our heads for the past 10, 20 years or so, you will find these programs very therapeutic and a good method to deprogram ourselves/yourselves from the daily narrative of our new world overlords, as well as a much needed reminder of who we used to be. Apart from all that, I think that the only solution to this nightmare is armed rebellion. If all else fails, read Vladimir Nabokov’s ‘Speak Memory’. Finally, if we do not succeed in reversing this runaway train in a timely manner, the only solution left to derail this nightmare… Read more »
I don’t think it needs violence, yet; the next London march should perhaps congregate around the BBC London HQ (name?) and see them try to deny it when their ‘talent’ can’t get in or out.
Similarly at the beebs Manchester Media Village and Brums Pebble Mill, if it’s still there.
Yeah, good old fashioned Arthur Scargill style picketing complete with oil-can fires.
I was never ‘programmed’ in the first place. Not watching live TV has a huge benefit on mental health as well as financial!
I’m starting to think this is going to end in some kind of civil war or we’ll all end up like China.
Well – that’s a flying pig.
You think you’d get that with the sort of gullible compliance of the past year, and yesterday’s vote of confidence in the opressors?
A good corrective is to have a bit of a dip into the Putney Debates to see the amount and sort of intellectual activity and ferment around in the 17th century during our last Civil War. There is nothing like that degree of political and philosophical intelligence today, when the supposedly democratic forum of debate is abolished.
If you are vulnerable to covid and to risk going into a public place puts you in danger of ill health then you were likely vulnerable to other viral illnesses and these cannot be eradicated by vaccinating everyone for covid so the vulnerable person remains at risk. Persons with fragile health cannot expect the whole of society to change for them.
As one officially designated as such – I totally agree. But I don’t think that it is we old farts who have been actually making disproportionate demands.
Actually, we took the initiative in rubbishing the notion that our grand children should keep their distance a year ago, and have never stopped meeting up indoors with any friends and family who are OK with it. Christmas was the usual full house.
Obviously, we can’t legislate for those who are infected …
… by incontinent fear. But we’ve done our best.
As someone with supposed comorbidities who worked with the public for 12 months from the start of lockdown I finally got my ‘shielding’ email the other day, deleted it; followed by the mailed version, binned it.
I’ve had exchanges with elderly folk, on Facebook, who were adamant that younger people were “selfish” for not abandoning normal life to protect them. I’m sure attitudes vary, and I recognise that older folk were the main target of the fear-mongering. I’m also aware that older people have had more time to hone their common sense.
I have recently lost my friend of 60 years after telling her that I’ve generally been living my life as normally as possible after recovering from a nasty bout of covid. She says I’m ****ing irresponsible and selfish, while she’s been living in state-sponsored fear and dread of life outside her front door, even after having the vaccine.
I refuse to live my remaining time on this earth in fear, neither will I submit to a vaccine I don’t need. But apparently, I am a moron!
It’s strange, you think you know a person inside-out, then something like this virus happens and you realise how pathetically gullible they are, a perfect example of a tyrant’s dream-population.
So Dr. Giubilini, man without an ounce of common sense, riddle me this…..
If those who have been vaccinated can still catch Wuhan Flu but just not suffer the extreme side of the condition, how come they won’t kill these delicate little flowers you’re dead set on protecting, rather than the fit and healthy unvaccinated people?
His argument is a joke, fit for the gullible only which sadly includes our media. He’s just using it as cover to help usher in the bio security state.
The media are not gullible, they are complicit, bought and paid for by OmniGov. With our money!!
The trouble with asymmetric warfare is that it can be difficult to identify the true enemy. But it’s sure as hell not that pesky little virus.
I’m afraid Bhattacharya is far too sanguine and forgiving on the vaccine issue.
He’s not alone in this – it is, I guess a reluctance to depart from the religious status of vaccines that tends to overstate their general role in health improvement.
Ok so, in order for you to be safe I have to take extra unnecessary risks, potentially killing me for your safer pub visit? Isn’t that 1 step removed from ‘hey look at that healthy person over there, his organs could save 6 lives and improve the life of a few more, quick cut him up!’.
How anyone can make this argument and look themselves in the mirror is staggering to me.
Isn’t that what vampires and zombies do?
It’s what the CCP do, harvest organs from undesirable for the benefit of members of the Party.
The health care industry has been taking organs from “brain dead” patients, and living tissue from aborted babies for decades.
I agree – and I can’t understand why the comparison of vaccine mandates with compulsory seat-belts is so often used. Wearing seat belts does not profoundly change your biology or interfere with your biochemical make-up; they might be uncomfortable for certain builds of people, but this can be adjusted for.
Also, there is less room in seat belt requirements for perverse incentives by those in influential positions such as our CSO and the WHO, who stand to gain considerably from such mandates.
To my mind we have let fear, risk elimination, control get out of all proportion and this is so dangerous, it must stop now, we shouldn’t even be considering these passports etc; it goes against everything we should have learnt a long time ago is wrong. Surely something has gone dangerously wrong. Where does risk elimination stop; as we get older or weaker the risks to us of anything that a normal healthy person would shrug off without a problem increase, we can’t remove all risk, something will get us in the end. We can’t use that as a justification for removing everyones freedom. We can’t remove every dangerous animal etc, even viruses probably have an important role in maintaining the balance; I fear we upset that balance at our peril every time we try to control nature – remove all the dangerous animals and we upset the balance and get a different problem, try and control the mighty river it will still do what it wants. I am being cautious about the virus until we know more, but I see that as my problem, for the informed individual, not societies problem; if I believed in the jab then that… Read more »
I worked in a Pathology department all my life, and have an MSc in Medical Biochemistry, and none of this makes sense to me either, unless I assume that it’s nothing to do with “defeating the virus.”
Well yes, it’s nothing to do with the virus.
I was thinking about this whilst cooking dinner.
I hate to be the person to say this, but is this what controlled opposition looks like?
In other words, you oppose something everyone hates (lockdowns in this case) but promote the desired outcome as your alternative “solution” (“vaccines”).
I’m not saying this is the case, but it’s something worth pondering. Especially when we now have proven treatments for Covid that are far better than any vaccine can compete with.
I think you’ve nailed it.
Is this genuinely the best Toby Young can do? Have someone set out the most devious argument for the odious “passports” (“the importance of individual liberty is actually one reason in favour”) and then present, in opposition, speculative concerns of them reducing take-up, amongst the vulnerable, of the sainted “vaccines”?
What about the “individual liberty” to choose your own risks? Even assuming that the “vaccines” work, why should the (hypothetical) wish of a vulnerable person, to enter a pub without worrying about catching CoViD-19, trump the express wish of a healthy individual not to risk his body being injected with a foreign substance?
For anyone who’s missed it: the authorities do not care about protecting the vulnerable; they care about monitoring, and micromanaging, us all, with a system of electronic “Id. cards”.
Setting up the debate, on the Giubilini – Bhattacharya basis, can only serve to advance the bio-security state agenda.
I’m about to post two contradictory comments. Please up-vote the one with which you agree, and, please, do NOT down-vote the other.
One: Lockdown Sceptics has a genuine commitment to preserving / restoring our liberty.
Two: Lockdown Sceptics serves as controlled opposition, to mitigate effective opposition to the loss of freedom planned for us.
The argument made by Dr. Giubilini is a little different to most of the previous arguments I have heard. I suspect that this is because the side of evil recognise that there is no logical basis for having vaccine passports, because they do not protect anyone from anything. Their sole purpose is to coerce people into taking a dangerous treatment by taking away their liberties if they do not comply. We know this because if the vaccine is good and true, then an unvaccinated person cannot infect a vaccinated person. Unvaccinated people can infect each other, but that is a risk that they have chosen to take rather than the risk of taking the vaccine. So how to get around this unbreachable argument? Well what Dr. Giubilini has done is introduced a very rare individual who is unable to take the vaccine for medical reasons, and then seeks to protect them by demanding that the rest of the world gets vaccinated. Now it is true to say that if the vaccines are good and true that those who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons would be protected from those coerced into getting vaccinated. But how many people cannot get vaccinated?… Read more »
I didn’t think that anyone was deemed to be unable to have the “vaccine”. All the people closest to death were prioritised to be vaccinated first. All those poor people in nursing homes, some of whom will have literally only had weeks (if not less) left to live, will have been injected regardless. Anyone vulnerable who dies shortly after being injected “would have died anyway” (nothing to see here folks). History of severe allergy? Give em another brand of Vaccine”. Pregnant? No worries. Next it will be “infant? It’s perfectly safe and helps to protect granny”. These people driving the vaccine programme have no conscience and don’t give a shit about any of us, least of all the so-called vulnerable. So we need to stop talking about the “vaccine” in terms of protecting the vulnerable. It’s just a psyop, a manipulation to get us all vaccinated and controlled.
“ Their freedom to have a normal life, to travel, to go to public spaces, to socialise – in other words, their fundamental freedoms (the very same ones that lockdown denies) – presuppose that they are able do all these things as safely as possible.”
Eh? Since when has it been either the states or an individual’s responsibility to ensure that medically vulnerable people are able to do everything as safely as possible?
If that was the case, then surely all vaccines would be mandatory and testing for all contagious diseases? Maybe be all health conditions to ensure that your obesity wasn’t overburdening the NHS for them. We certainly wouldn’t be able to accept any of the TB ridden migrants that we currently do.
I’ll do my best not to sneeze/cough on everyone but especially babies/pensioners. But aside from that my own freedom and Liberty comes before theirs!
“fundamental freedoms … presuppose that they are able do all these things as safely as possible”
Pure bunkum. Freedom has never presupposed maximum possible safety. In fact, any constraint (such as maximising safety) is antithetical to freedom. (I’m not saying that creating a safer environment necessarily makes the people within it less free, but that a diktat to achieve some stipulated measure of safety necessarily reduces freedom in what you do or how you do it.)
Alberto Giubilini has also advocated that it is permissible to abort full-term infants after birth
https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf
He has a long history of being naive about the idea vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ as if there are so simply by belonging to a class of products.
oMG that’s sick and evil. That’s not abortion, that’s murder he’s advocating. In his own words “killing a newborn should be permissible” if it’s unwanted.
Fantastic find!
I do not support “cancel culture”, but, on this occasion, I’m drawn to make an exception: Giubilini, you’re cancelled!
I don’t see how he can hold both these views (a newborn is not a’person’; the safety of the clinically vulnerable is sufficiently important that the non-medically non-vaccinated may have their liberty curtailed) simultaneously. Dr Giubilini appears ethically confused.
If you have the vaccine why do you need a certificate/passport to say you’ve had it? One isn’t required for any other vaccine to go about normal everyday life. Covid-19 is just a nasty respiratory disease like flu which can kill you, but so can many diseases. The vaccine doesn’t provide immunity from getting it or transmitting it, it supposedly makes symptoms milder. So vulnerable people who can’t have the vaccine are at as much risk from vaccinated people as they are unvaccinated so a vaccine certificate/passport makes no sense. Also the survival rate if you get it is phenomenally high because your own innate immune system works really well, especially if you’re healthy.