I can't disagree that they aren't mandatory "as such"...but come September they WILL be mandatory if you want to go to nightclubs which, on its own is bad enough, but it was the "we reserver the right to apply this to other locations and venues where large numbers of people gather" that concerns me the most as that could very easily be applied to large supermarkets and shopping centres. At that point, IF it got to that, would you still argue that they aren't in every meaningful way "mandatory"?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Could Be Forced to Follow New Digital Competition Rules or Face Fines, Under UK Proposal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even if the government doesn't impose a requirement, other organisations might.
There are so many holes in the vaccination certificate/passport plans. Not least that they will either have to impose an age limit of 18 or accept those under 18 do not need to comply.
I wanted my vaccinations and was pleased to get them. But the current fiasco is not how to get from where we are to even higher vaccination rates.
Fine wondering - and quite possibly they didn't. But what would you have done differently?
OK, leaning OT, last reply on this.
Do you need a licence to drive but do you need to drive? A passport to go away or stay in the UK? You want to go in a club you need a jab, tough, a country will mandate a jab, boo hoo. You don't have to do those things, some countries mandate a vaccination for other infections. But yeah, it is a fickle point.
Personally I would not want to mix with people who decide that the jab is an infringement on their oooman rights (genuine reasons aside). They can take a long walk off a sort pier when the tide is in for all I care.
Couldn't agree more! Makes you wonder how, with all of these supposed behavioural experts in SAGE, the government thinks that the way to get the "vaccine hesitant" on board is to essentially threaten them! Apparently being a behavioural "expert" has pretty low levels of knowledge required...or common sense if I'm feeling especially generous.
How many times have I heard this driving license and passport argument now??!? Do you not see how people will argue against that? I need a driving license because I need to prove that I have the knowledge of how to operate a piece of machinery which, in unskilled hands, could kill people. I need a passport to prove that I am who I say I am for identification purposes. I have no objection to either of those...simply because neither of them require me to put a substance into my body which could, in fact, seriously harm me or kill me. I completely understand that it could also prevent either of those things happening to me...I really do get that. But the whole driving license/passport thing is a huge false equivalence.
The issue I have isn't so much having to have the passport to prove you have been vaccinated...it's the push to get everybody vaccinated by threatening to cut off access to areas of what is ultimately "day to day" life. I see that churches have now been included along with a repeat of those "we reserve the right..." messages for other areas.
As you stated though, this is veering OT, and I respect your right to choose. In the same way that you wouldn't want to be around people who believe that compulsory vaccination is not an affront to their civil liberties, I would also want to avoid being around those who, by "virtue" of their double jabbed status, feel that they can now go out into the world safely and spread the virus around while carrying their shield of virtuous protection in the form of the
Factories shut! down!(iPhone revenue effect), governments trying to change the App Store(2nd biggest Service revenue effect), smart water bottle companying suing(free media for a water bottle), Mac computers can get malware! (currently third biggest revenue) to just name several, all in short time span. Yep, it's earnings time where every piece of news can push stock price in directions that make someone, in positions of high liquidity, nice extra money.
Carry on...
Carry on...
On a news program this evening, they interviewed a patient who does now seem to be recovering. However, he had been calling his wife to discuss his funeral not long ago.
He said that social media claims that the vaccine is more dangerous than Covid-19 itself had persuaded him not to get vaccinated. He has changed his mind...
My view is very simple:
I can't see any way forward other than vaccination or gigantic scale infections.
The numbers who appear to have suffered from vaccination, while it is a real thing and can be serious, are still far lower than those who have suffered from Covid-19. And that is the situation despite the proportion of the UK population that has been vaccinated being far higher than the number known to have been infected with Covid-19.
I totally understand the logical arguments...and I am happy to discuss and consider those. It is the pedestal-mounted moral arguments that I cannot abide...but that's just me!!
To counter your news program story, a friend of mine got COVID pretty badly back in December/January. He was laid up in bed for three weeks...could hear "bubbling" (his words) from his lungs when he tried to breathe...and went so far as to give his wife instructions about his funeral...same as your guy above. However, since his experience, which saw him have a fever for ten days straight, he says that he knows about 20 people who have had bad symptoms of COVID, but nobody that has died from it. He also knows three people, all under 45 years old, and all fairly fit and healthy, with no known health issues, who have died within two weeks of taking the vaccine. He told me just today that he will NOT be taking the vaccine and would rather risk COVID again...make of that what you will...
I have no issue taking the vaccine myself...after it has been at least 3-4 years "in the wild" (normally clinical trials for longer term effects but seem like this is a real life trial so....) and if, at that time, COVID is still anything of an issue. I am not an anti-vaxxer but I am, as a great deal of people are, an anti-untested-for-long-term-effects-vaxxer. This is especially true as I happen to believe that anything that involves messing with genes (RNA and DNA) is just asking for trouble. Humanity has got so cocky and arrogant that it now feels like it can play god with our fundamental building blocks...and that is an experiment that I am prepared to be a part of...but good luck to those who are...genuinely!
EDIT: And re: the numbers, currently the "official" deaths post vaccine are somewhere around 1,400 I believe and the deaths post COVID are around 130,000...so just based on that the vaccine could be seen to have killed 1% as many people as the virus. However, it is widely accepted that these kinds of adverse reaction databases only get between 1% and 10% of the actual number of adverse reactions (including deaths) reported to them. So best case scenario we can reasonably extrapolate that the number of deaths post vaccine is up around 14,000 (and potentially 140,000). Equally, we could equally point out that those 130,000 "COVID Deaths" do include people who have been killed in a car crash within 28 days of testing positive, clearly not something that it is reasonable to attribute to COVID. So that will bring the number of deaths actually caused by and not simply concurrent with COVID down. It isn't clear how much that would reduce it by, but let's just say 10%. We now have a situation where the real numbers could be 117k COVID deaths and 14k vaccine deaths. COVID has had 17 months, the vaccine has had (at most) seven - depending on age group. So COVID has killed an average of 6882 people per month, and the vaccine has killed an average of 2,000 per month!! Forgive my hesitancy to risk an as-yet-untested-in-the-long-term medical treatment for an illness which I am at relatively low risk of anyway, which has a 99.something% survival rate (even pre-vaccine) and which actually kills a third as many people per month as the disease it is supposedly fighting against! If I was in my 80s and had other pre-existing conditions, I'd give the old Russian Roulette wheel a spin...but that's probably about it!
Last edited:
Good luck with that!!! Clots the worst that could happen eh???
And I didn't say that any of them are DNA...I just said that anything that messes with RNA or DNA is asking for trouble...meaning RNA-based "vaccines" or things like CRISPR...but I appreciate how it might have come across like I was referring to DNA vaccines...hence the reply...
EDIT: Anyway, this is 100% OT now so we should probably get back to the Apple thing!! But thank you for at least not being all preachy! I do genuinely respect your opinion and your position and wish you the best of luck fighting the good fight with the weapons you have chosen!
Last edited: