News Forum - Proof of vaccine might be needed to enter “high risk” stores in shopping centres

[HappyExpat]

14 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Alternatively KISS - Keep It Simple, Stoopid.

Just give out a Covid card with the details on it when someone get's their second jab or gets discharged from hospital / quarantine center.

Why try to re-invent the wheel?

The problem is they're too easy to fake. It's already happening around the world - counterfeit Covid vaccination cards. 

BTW, you misspelled "Stoopid" - you got the "o's" mixed up. 

[Alavan]

1 hour ago, Griff1315 said:

What's the point of prove of vaccine when it's already known vaccinated people can still contract and pass the virus. Yeah hopefully vaccines are protecting us from the worst of the illness but not the transmission.

Vaccinated people are 80% less likely of contracting and passing the virus, plus they will not end in hospital.

[Alavan]

1 hour ago, Ynwaps said:

Simply boykot restaurants that enforce the unenforceable

Let them burn, let them suffer until they decide to take back their power 

What is the use of boycotting a restaurant you may not enter?
Boycotting them or not boycotting them makes no difference for them.
I will hapily go to such a restaurant where there si less chance of catching the virus.

[Griff1315]

4 minutes ago, Alavan said:

Vaccinated people are 80% less likely of contracting and passing the virus, plus they will not end in hospital.

Yeah but they can still carry the virus and transmit it to others.

A vaccinated customer can enter a store carrying the virus they are allowed in no worries. They could then pass the virus to members of staff or other customers it's no different from a non vaccinated person.  The percentages might be lower the sickness might not be as bad but the transmission is still possible.

I for one would love everyone  to be vaccinated it's the best way out of this mess. Having said that it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated either by their own choice, total lack of good vaccines or medical reasons.

Discrimination is never right under any circumstances.

[gummy]

11 minutes ago, Griff1315 said:

Yeah but they can still carry the virus and transmit it to others.

A vaccinated customer can enter a store carrying the virus they are allowed in no worries. They could then pass the virus to members of staff or other customers it's no different from a non vaccinated person.  The percentages might be lower the sickness might not be as bad but the transmission is still possible.

I for one would love everyone  to be vaccinated it's the best way out of this mess. Having said that it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated either by their own choice, total lack of good vaccines or medical reasons.

Discrimination is never right under any circumstances.

Just have seperate stores, just like apartheid in SA. The existing malls say for those vaccinated and new ones for those not vaccinated incoporating disenfectant dips and spray booths as they walk in and similar when they walk out. Of course they will also need to have an embedded chip implant so that they can be permantly tracked. I hope the PM is not reading this forum as he might steal my ideas 

[Griff1315]

1 minute ago, gummy said:

Just have seperate stores, just like apartheid in SA. The existing malls say for those vaccinated and new ones for those not vaccinated incoporating disenfectant dips and spray booths as they walk in and similar when they walk out. Of course they will also need to have an embedded chip implant so that they can be permantly tracked. I hope the PM is not reading this forum as he might steal my ideas 

Priceless 

Uncle Peanuts new advisor lol

[HappyExpat]

15 minutes ago, Griff1315 said:

They could then pass the virus to members of staff or other customers it's no different from a non vaccinated person.

This is not correct, and we'll repeat it until it sinks in. Vaccinated people have a lower transmission rate. Please learn this, it's a fundamental requirement of understanding this pandemic.

Edited September 7, 2021 by HappyExpat
emphasis

[Griff1315]

Just now, HappyExpat said:

This is not correct, and we'll repeat it until it sinks in. Vaccinated people have a lower transmission rate. Please understand this, it's a fundamental requirement of understanding this pandemic.

A lower transmission rate not a zero transmission rate.

I want everyone to have a vaccine but I don't believe the ones that don't should be discriminated against.

[Stonker]

46 minutes ago, HappyExpat said:

The problem is they're too easy to fake. It's already happening around the world - counterfeit Covid vaccination cards. 

BTW, you misspelled "Stoopid" - you got the "o's" mixed up. 

No more difficult than an app - counterfeit apps are already widely advertised everywhere that has them.

The problem is that if you want "everyone" (restaurants, beauty salons, malls, etc) to verify them, whether apps or cards, then you have to both give them limited access to the central vaccination database and authority to cross-check them with ID cards and even in Thailand that wouldn't be popular.

It's not such a problem if 70%+ of the population are vaccinated as there's less incentive, but if it's only 10 or 20% and you can't even buy a vaccine then it's an invitation for fakery.

For Thais, whose ID cards now all have a chip, it would be very easy to incorporate this into the ID card at district level but as always you're back to square one for Thais and anyone else vaccinated abroad, including tourists.

[HappyExpat]

25 minutes ago, Griff1315 said:

A lower transmission rate not a zero transmission rate.

I want everyone to have a vaccine but I don't believe the ones that don't should be discriminated against.

That is perfectly your choice. If there are two stores selling the same thing, one vax only customers and the other not, I will spend my money at the the vax only store.

[HappyExpat]

2 minutes ago, Stonker said:

It's not such a problem if 70%+ of the population are vaccinated as there's less incentive, but if it's only 10 or 20% and you can't even buy a vaccine then it's an invitation for fakery.

And therein lies the problem in Thailand. The haphazard manner in which it's being handled is confusing everyone.

I'm gonna get my 2nd Pfizer shot next week, a booster when it's time if available, and I'm still gonna stay home except for the absolute necessities until the actual numbers dictate otherwise.

[Griff1315]

18 minutes ago, HappyExpat said:

That is perfectly your choice. If there are two stores selling the same thing, one vax only customers and the other not, I will spend my money at the the vax only store.

Jog on hope you find your select stores have everything you need.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Alavan said:

Vaccinated people are 80% less likely of contracting and passing the virus, plus they will not end in hospital.

The only studies I"ve seen concluding that  were from Israel, based only on Pfizer.

One concluded 78% less likely to transmit the virus, and the second 41% less likely, and both were inconclusive as the numbers tested were too small.

Crucially, neither included the Delta variant but were original only, and according to the CDC if it's correct it only applies to mRNA vaccines and also not to the Delta variant.

Studies in the UK, US and Singapore show that with the Delta variant there's no difference in transmission, vaccinated or not, and that's been repeated last month by the CDC and Johns Hopkins.

If you know of any other studies could you give a link or reference as NO others come up with a search and all that comes up are recent studies contradiicting that.

42 minutes ago, HappyExpat said:

This is not correct, and we'll repeat it until it sinks in. Vaccinated people have a lower transmission rate. 

Well, you may be right but without any scientific evidence to support it, repeating it as often as you want doesn't make it any more correct than the nut-jobs repeatedly saying the world's flat.

[Bob20]

15 minutes ago, Stonker said:

The only studies I"ve seen concluding that  were from Israel, based only on Pfizer.

One concluded 78% less likely to transmit the virus, and the second 41% less likely, and both were inconclusive as the numbers tested were too small.

Crucially, neither included the Delta variant but were original only, and according to the CDC if it's correct it only applies to mRNA vaccines and also not to the Delta variant.

Studies in the UK, US and Singapore show that with the Delta variant there's no difference in transmission, vaccinated or not, and that's been repeated last month by the CDC and Johns Hopkins.

If you know of any other studies could you give a link or reference as NO others come up with a search and all that comes up are recent studies contradiicting that.

Well, you may be right but without any scientific evidence to support it, repeating it as often as you want doesn't make it any more correct than the nut-jobs repeatedly saying the world's flat.

 

How big is the chance that a vaccinated person is infectious? And then take into account that their viral load may be reduced compared to a non-vaccinated infectious person (not proven and not likely for delta)

How big is the chance that an unvaccinated person is infectious? And if they are, their viral load would be 100%.

When these details are known, it is possible to risk assess the difference in transmissability to see if it is statistically significant. I doubt it.

Meanwhile the unvaccinated take a much larger risk to mingle as sooner or later they will encounter the virus, with a much larger risk of serious sickness or death.

And I read a lot about the right to choose to refuse vaccination. And then I read about it being discrimination if they are subsequently excluded from certain events.

But would they please realise that easing the restrictions will be possible because of the choice of people to get vaccinated (with the risk that they accept)? Otherwise the restrictions would not ease at all!

 

[HappyExpat]

8 minutes ago, Stonker said:

Well, you may be right but without any scientific evidence to support it, repeating it as often as you want doesn't make it any more correct than the nut-jobs repeatedly saying the world's flat.

Actually there is plenty of scientific evidence supporting a lower transmission rate among the vaccinated. No actual evidence to the contrary - unless you have some at hand?

[Griff1315]

4 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

How big is the chance that a vaccinated person is infectuous? And then take into account that their viral load may be reduced compared to a non-vaccinated infectious person (not proven and not likely for delta)

How big is the chance that an unvaccinated person is infectious? And if they are, their viral load would be 100%.

When these details are known, it is possible to risk assess the difference in transmissability to see if it is statistically significant. I doubt it.

Meanwhile the unvaccinated take a much larger risk to mingle as sooner or later they will encounter the virus, with a much larger risk of serious sickness or death.

And I read a lot about the right to choose to refuse vaccination. And then I read about it being discrimination if they are subsequent excluded from certain events.

But please realise that easing the restrictions will be possible because of the choice of people to get vaccinated (with the risk that they accept). Otherwise the restrictions would not ease at all!

The choice to get vaccinated is a little mute in a country that cannot organize a pi## up in a brewery never mind a effective vaccine roll out. 

Sure I urge everyone to get vaccinated as soon as possible but to discriminate against those that haven't either by choice or inept vaccine roll out had a vaccine is wrong.

What about the younger population that's going to be waiting sometime yet to get a vaccine are they to be banned from shopping malls and restaurants.

[Bob20]

1 minute ago, Griff1315 said:

The choice to get vaccinated is a little mute in a country that cannot organize a pi## up in a brewery never mind a effective vaccine roll out. 

Sure I urge everyone to get vaccinated as soon as possible but to discriminate against those that haven't either by choice or inept vaccine roll out had a vaccine is wrong.

What about the younger population that's going to be waiting sometime yet to get a vaccine are they to be banned from shopping malls and restaurants.

I understand, and that's not what I said. There are people that are adamantly refusing any vaccine. I am saying that their freedoms will be returned by people that make another choice, while they refuse to cooperate.

They could have a slightly different attitude towards it.

(Not saying anything about the ones who can't get a jab)

[Stonker]

5 minutes ago, Bob20 said:

How big is the chance that a vaccinated person is infectious? And then take into account that their viral load may be reduced compared to a non-vaccinated infectious person (not proven and not likely for delta)

How big is the chance that an unvaccinated person is infectious? And if they are, their viral load would be 100%.

When these details are known, it is possible to risk assess the difference in transmissability to see if it is statistically significant. I doubt it.

Meanwhile the unvaccinated take a much larger risk to mingle as sooner or later they will encounter the virus, with a much larger risk of serious sickness or death.

And I read a lot about the right to choose to refuse vaccination. And then I read about it being discrimination if they are subsequent excluded from certain events.

But would they please realise that easing the restrictions will be possible because of the choice of people to get vaccinated (with the risk that they accept)? Otherwise the restrictions would not ease at all!

I'll go with the studies and scientific conclusions I've seen, which all without exception conclude that there's little or no difference in "infectiveness" between vaccinated and unvaccinated, but if @Alavan, @HappyExpat or anyone else can show me any evidence otherwise I'll be only too happy to go along with it as it would make life a lot easier.

The problem is that if a lot of people think this "80%" is true, and they're behaving as if they're not going to infect anyone (or they're very unlikely to) then they're just as  responsible for prolonging mask-wearing and lockdowns as the anti-vaxxers.

A double-whammy!

[Bob20]

5 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I'll go with the studies and scientific conclusions I've seen, which all without exception conclude that there's little or no difference in "infectiveness" between vaccinated and unvaccinated, but if @Alavan, @HappyExpat or anyone else can show me any evidence otherwise I'll be only too happy to go along with it as it would make life a lot easier.

The problem is that if a lot of people think this "80%" is true, and they're behaving as if they're not going to infect anyone (or they're very unlikely to) then they're just as  responsible for prolonging mask-wearing and lockdowns as the anti-vaxxers.

A double-whammy!

I've seen the studies and said I doubt there's much difference. For now it's not going away regardless. I was trying to make a different point though.

[HappyExpat]

7 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I'll go with the studies and scientific conclusions I've seen, which all without exception conclude that there's little or no difference in "infectiveness" between vaccinated and unvaccinated, but if @Alavan, @HappyExpat or anyone else can show me any evidence otherwise I'll be only too happy to go along with it as it would make life a lot easier.

The problem is that if a lot of people think this "80%" is true, and they're behaving as if they're not going to infect anyone (or they're very unlikely to) then they're just as  responsible for prolonging mask-wearing and lockdowns as the anti-vaxxers.

A double-whammy!

I'll give you one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates

 

[BlueSphinx]

3 minutes ago, HappyExpat said:

I'll give you one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates

The population-based data looked at the Netherlands from February to May, when the Alpha variant (B117) was dominant and the available vaccines were by Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.

[HappyExpat]

10 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

The population-based data looked at the Netherlands from February to May, when the Alpha variant (B117) was dominant and the available vaccines were by Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca/Oxford, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.

Any further down this road I would suggest taking it to the CCC topic where all is taken for what it's worth.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Griff1315 said:

Yeah but they can still carry the virus and transmit it to others.

A vaccinated customer can enter a store carrying the virus they are allowed in no worries. They could then pass the virus to members of staff or other customers it's no different from a non vaccinated person.  The percentages might be lower the sickness might not be as bad but the transmission is still possible.

I for one would love everyone  to be vaccinated it's the best way out of this mess. Having said that it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against those who have not been vaccinated either by their own choice, total lack of good vaccines or medical reasons.

Discrimination is never right under any circumstances.

Very well said!  I’m fed up with the people who still insist that every social injustice  is justified  when it comes to vaccinations ,especially now that the vaxers can give the poison.

[Stonker]

39 minutes ago, HappyExpat said:

I'll give you one:

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/08/study-ties-covid-vaccines-lower-transmission-rates

Sorry, but it doesn't if you just read the first paragraph:

"The population-based data looked at the Netherlands from February to May, when the Alpha variant (B117) was dominant".

That's no longer the case.

Edit: I see BS beat me to it while I was checking the pizza!

[Stonker]

24 minutes ago, HappyExpat said:

Any further down this road I would suggest taking it to the CCC topic where all is taken for what it's worth.

That's a little disappointing.  It shouldn't matter who disagrees   with you if they  show that what you thought was true was incorrect.