Covid passes to be introduced.

[EFLImpudence]

They are much less likely to be carrying it though.

Less likely but not zero, and there are four times as many of them

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I said in the OP, the only infectious ones in such venues will be among the vaccinated ones.

 

[AngleEyes]

"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'

That doesn't mean you haven't got the virus.
You either have or you haven't, whatever the tests tell you.
If you have it, you can transmit it, if you haven't got it, you can't transmit it.
A negative test, if you do really have the virus, does not prevent you from transmitting it.

 

[AngleEyes]

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.

Moral obligation cannot be forced, it's a persuasive technique.
On that basis, your critique of the site fails.

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

A Covid pass does absolutely noting to prevent the spread of Covid, unless you wear it as mask over your nose and mouth.
Of course you can only have a Covid pass if you qualify for one. It is the state of being qualified that reduces the spread of Covid.

 

[AngleEyes]

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.

If unvaccinated / untested people are not allowed in such places, there will be fewer unvaccinated / untested people socially interacting.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

As I said in the OP, the only infectious ones in such venues will be among the vaccinated ones.

So you accepted 'less likely', but not only are they less likely, they are less likely to catch it if they haven't got it, less likely to suffer serious consequences if they do and less likely to die of it too - All which makes it safer for the greater number.

 

[AngleEyes]

As I said in the OP, the only infectious ones in such venues will be among the vaccinated ones.

But if the unvaccinated were allowed in, your condition would not apply, and the more likely is that there would be many unvaccinated spreading the virus.

 

[EFLImpudence]

But if the unvaccinated were allowed in, your condition would not apply, and the more likely is that there would be many unvaccinated spreading the virus.

So, you agree with me.

 

[^woody^]

They are much less likely to be carrying it though.

That can't be so. If you look at the figures for infections, a high proportion of those have to be people who are vaccinated, and Covid generally (what ever variant) will have to be spread by vaccinated hosts, otherwise it will just fade out.

 

[^woody^]

It is the state of being qualified that reduces the spread of Covid.

That was the whole point of my initial question. How does it?

How does requiring a pass to get into a venue stop the spread when the people with the pass are just as likely to be spreading the virus?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That can't be so. If you look at the figures for infections, a high proportion of those have to be people who are vaccinated, and Covid generally (what ever variant) will have to be spread by vaccinated hosts, otherwise it will just fade out.

Which is exactly what it has been doing, so it's working. Unfortunately, there are still some spreading it.

 

[^woody^]

Moral obligation cannot be forced, it's a persuasive technique.
On that basis, your critique of the site fails.

Nonsense

Morals are just a reflection of society, and if society decided to change its morals then those become the new morals. There are already vast differences in what certain members of society, cultures or religions deem as "right" and to suggest that one person can be persuaded that their morals are wrong is bizarre.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

That was the whole point of my initial question. How does it?

How does requiring a pass to get into a venue stop the spread when the people with the pass are just as likely to be spreading the virus?

I just explained that.

 

[^woody^]

Which is exactly what it has been doing, so it's working. Unfortunately, there are still some spreading it.

You have actually lost me. I can't understand what you are saying from your several posts.

Vaccinated people can and are spreading Covid just the same as unvaccinated. That is a fact.

So what is the benefit of allowing people into a room just because they have a pass to prove vaccination, and denying them entry if they do not?

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

So what is the benefit of allowing people into a room just because they have a pass to prove vaccination, and denying them entry if they do not?

Sorry, I don't know what happened to my original words.... I said
'Which is exactly what it has been doing, so it's working. Unfortunately, there are still some spreading it.'

It was supposed to say roughly - 'those vaccinated are less likely to spread it, less likely to catch it if they don't have it, if they do catch it then it has a les serious effect on them, they don't become so ill, less likely to end up occupying an hospital bed - so generally greatly reduced consequences. On the other hand, there are those who have not been, or who are refusing the jab who pose a massive risk to everyone around them, so they need to be tested.'

Any better?