Search results

Again, tempting but I would strongly disagree with doing that. It sets a precedent. Do we charge smokers,drug takers, fat people, risk takers, rugby players...where does that end?

Hands up - I'm not quite sure what I am arguing about anymore, or if we are at cross porpoises. But I imagine the 'doing it for everything' option was considered and rejected partly on basis of what's reasonable (in terms of what people WANT to do vs what people HAVE to do), partly on balance...

It's certainly annoying. But the only other options would be mandatory vaccination for everyone (which personally i'd find hard to stomach) or refusal to treat unvaccinated covid patients - which (rightly) isn't going to happen. Looking after people who are victims of their own stupidity is one...

Not sure exactly what you mean, but I'm talking about reducing overall risk of transmission in society, not about an individual's risk. My layman's understanding of how the virus spreads is that it is much more about 'clusters' with one person having he opportunity to spread to multiple others...

Tinfoil hats are very good at deflecting uncomfortable truths.

No it doesn't it still reduces transmission risk, just not by as much as if you required passport for both.

Risk management. It's not binary (though that seems to be a difficult conecpt for many) It's not necessarily about individuals being cmfortable with one thing or another, it's about finding the best/fairest ways to reduce overall transmission. Many people HAVE to use public transport...

As above. Random checks. 90% of the impact, 5% of the additional checks. Job done.

Was thinking the same - I suspect this is where it will go, and makes sense as a compromise. Of course there will always be a few tw*ats that can't be arsed with the very minimal hassle involved in making sure they are tested (or downloading their vaccination status) and will find ways round...