Vaccine passports will protect us all

SEVENTY MPs have expressed opposition to the proposed ‘Vaccine Passports’ on the ground that they are ‘discriminatory’. Of course they are discriminatory – that is their purpose! They discriminate between those who have evidence to show that they have been vaccinated, and those who have not. Their purpose is to protect the former, who are more likely to be disease-free, from the latter, who are not.

After the vaccination programme is complete, the following categories of people will remain unvaccinated:

First are those who have not been jabbed for administrative reasons – missed by the system, or otherwise out of touch. Their remedy is simple: get jabbed.

The second are those who object because they consider that having the jab is more dangerous than not having it, or it is against some edict of their religion or creed. That is their choice and they must live with the consequences; in democracies the minority often has to give way to the needs of the majority.

The third are those unfortunate people for whom the jab presents an unusual hazard because of their mental or physical state. Such people deserve our sympathy and we should support them by whatever other means we can. But their unfortunate disability – for which they often cannot be blamed – should regrettably not be allowed to prejudice the good of the majority.

The general public is entitled to be protected from those with infectious diseases, whatever their nature.

This is the traditional purpose of quarantine or isolation – we wait for a reasonable assurance that potentially infectious people are now safe to mingle with the rest of us, in pubs, restaurants, concert halls, sporting events, etc. Then, such events can go ahead with a reasonable chance of being safe; most people can enjoy themselves again and businesses and events can go ahead to the profit of individuals and the economy at large.

We should also consider that other countries may well demand some form of proof of vaccination before allowing UK citizens entry; those with relatives, property, businesses or educational needs in such countries will need some documentation, and will be severely disadvantaged if this is not available.

The issue of vaccine passports would be expensive, so a reasonable charge for issuing them could well be considered. Currently, a normal passport costs £72, but I would suggest that a vaccine passport should be somewhat less than this.

It would be possible for all new passports to incorporate a Vaccine Certificate, and for current passports to be returned for the addition of such evidence; this should be cheaper than a separate new document.

Let me offer Messrs Duncan Smith and Corbyn (strange bedfellows!) the following acid test. Would they rather share a railway carriage or bus with others freely talking, breathing, laughing, coughing and sneezing (without face masks) who have not been vaccinated against Covid (or any other lethal disease for that matter), or with people they know to have been vaccinated?

David Lucas Cornwall