Covid passes to be introduced.

[^woody^]

They should have a shorter time periods where they can infect others. It's usually what vaccination does. Like most things it will take a while to find out if that happens with the ones that are being used.

A typical wave always start in the younger age groups and then spreads up. Since schools have been monitored a lot more those can be thrown in too now. Shorter times mean less infection spreading. It's a probability thing. Also of course significant numbers of younger people finish up in hospital. The very young usually don't.

So increase the age range downwards as they have. It will take a while to see how effective that is but experience says it usually is.

It's another imperfect aspect but the end result is more good than bad.

Actually as the age groups in hospital seems to have changed I expected some reaction irrespective of the omicron problem. Have to say seems as I don't look every week now. I'm more in a this will go on for years mood and not very happy about how some aspects are handled. They seem to feel that people are scared so don't emphasise some things as much as they might. I don't know of anybody who is scared and there are plenty of people out and about who aren't either yet various carry on whining about it even politicians - especially them.

Hmmmm. I still can't figure out the logic.

The talk is that if you have the virus, with or without symptoms, you can spread it - and you wont know whether you have enough or too little to be able spread it, and on that basis alone the Covid Pass concept seems flawed because the pass wont guarantee that the person wont be a spreader.

Is there a link or something on the scientific justification for a Covid Pass concept?

As an aside, I notice that the previous talk of "viral load" as a reasoning as to why some people may not actually get Covid or only get very mild symptoms, or may not pass on the virus does not now seem to be talked about.

 

[EFLImpudence]

but can someone explain or link me to the thinking around why Covid passes are beneficial?

No.

 

[AngleEyes]

They actually only come back 'positive' if you have enough of the 'virus' to transmit it, not whether you have the 'virus'...

What kind of bonkers double speak is this. "If you have the virus, but you might not have enough of the virus".
FFS, you've either got it or you haven't!
For sure there is symptomatic people and asymptomatic people, but the asymptomatic people still have the virus!

 

[AngleEyes]

but can someone explain or link me to the thinking around why Covid passes are beneficial?

No.

Yes

This is currently the case for COVID-19 vaccinations. There is an extremely low risk of serious side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines. So it is not just a safety for oneself and a kindness to others, but a moral obligation to be vaccinated.
https://theconversation.com/vaccine-passports-why-they-are-good-for-society-160419
​

Although I might add, that a better way of reducing transmission, and therefore curtailing the pandemic is isolation.
But obviously that method adversely affects the health and wealth of society, so the vaccine passports are a kind of a compromise.

 

[Mottie]

I generally agree with Government policy (although perhaps not so much implementation), but can someone explain or link me to the thinking around why Covid passes are beneficial?

As in the OP, jabbed people can still spread Covid

Yes, the vaccinated can still carry and spread the virus but if they spread it to vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people, the vaccinated are not likely to be admitted to hospital whereas the unvaccinated are.

 

[ellal]

What kind of bonkers double speak is this. "If you have the virus, but you might not have enough of the virus".
FFS, you've either got it or you haven't!

Back to school you go...

"Lateral flow tests deliver a rapid result, in 30 minutes. They can find positive cases with high levels of virus that are easy to transmit to others, helping to intercept and reduce further infections."

If you have low levels you could get a false negative despite having the 'virus'

 

[^woody^]

Yes

This is currently the case for COVID-19 vaccinations. There is an extremely low risk of serious side effects with the COVID-19 vaccines. So it is not just a safety for oneself and a kindness to others, but a moral obligation to be vaccinated.
https://theconversation.com/vaccine-passports-why-they-are-good-for-society-160419
​

Although I might add, that a better way of reducing transmission, and therefore curtailing the pandemic is isolation.
But obviously that method adversely affects the health and wealth of society, so the vaccine passports are a kind of a compromise.

That site make no sensible argument for Covid passes other than stating is a way to get everyone vaccinated based on enforcing this theory of moral obligation - which is nonsensical to say that moral obligation has to be forced.

What I'm looking for is the actual reasoning on what a Covid Pass does to help in combating the spread of Covid

 

[ajohn]

If you have low levels you could get a false negative despite having the 'virus'

Yes and that means less chance of spreading it.

Your not doing too well. Why not try the fact that dead virus can also test positive.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

The main problem in this area is why some plonkers do not understand why they do a number of things. All must be perfect etc. Hardly anything is so what do people expect. Negative outlook taking no notice what so ever of the positives.

If only life in general came with 100% guarantees. Some just fail to grasp that everything you are involved with involves some level of gamble. All you can do is work out the which are the better odds, for the outcome you want and go with it. No doubt with covid, which offers the best odds.

 

[^woody^]

Yes, the vaccinated can still carry and spread the virus but if they spread it to vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people, the vaccinated are not likely to be admitted to hospital whereas the unvaccinated are.

That's plausible but is it the primary reasoning?

But even so it seems nonsense to allow say 1000 people into an event based on a Covid Pass, and then let those same 1000 then jump on public transport, go for a drink or around the shops where no pass is needed.

ie you do it for every place and control all public interaction or none at all

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

The talk is that if you have the virus, with or without symptoms, you can spread it - and you wont know whether you have enough or too little to be able spread it, and on that basis alone the Covid Pass concept seems flawed because the pass wont guarantee that the person wont be a spreader.

Is there a link or something on the scientific justification for a Covid Pass concept?

Hence the simple rule of - if you have it, you are not allowed in.

 

[^woody^]

Hence the simple rule of - if you have it, you are not allowed in.

Have what, Covid?

A vaccinated person does not need a test and can get in.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Hence the simple rule of - if you have it, you are not allowed in.

That is only the case for the unvaccinated, i.e. they can't get negative test.

For the vaccinated, just showing that they have been vaccinated months ago is no indication whether they are infectious or not.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That's plausible but is it the primary reasoning?

But even so it seems nonsense to allow say 1000 people into an event based on a Covid Pass, and then let those same 1000 then jump on public transport, go for a drink or around the shops where no pass is needed.

ie you do it for every place and control all public interaction or none at all

Proximities will be closer, for longer in the first example and entry is much easier to control, with greater opportunities to be spread amongst more people.

It is much more difficult logistics involved in shops, transport, pubs and etc., with numbers much lower anyway.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That is only the case for the unvaccinated, i.e. they can't get negative test.

For the vaccinated, just showing that they have been vaccinated months ago is no indication whether they are infectious or not.

They are much less likely to be carrying it though.