# Can we discuss the rationale for introducing immunity passports?



## Andrew Murphy (18 Apr 2020)

Let me start by stating that I am in no way undermining the seriousness of Covid-19 on the vulnerable in society but I cannot figure out why or how the proposed _immunity passports_ are going to help control the disease, especially given the comparatively small number of people that go on to experience serious effects/death out of a total population of c. 6 million. 

Despite reading widely I cannot find a valid argument that supports the notion that the passport will control the disease, for what I have read the virus mutates, so the anti-bodies that result from having had the disease and/or vaccine are only relevant to that particular strand of the virus - much like the annual flu. Therefore a passport stating I have had the virus/vaccine does not guarantee that I am not carrying or suffering from a mutation, which kind of renders the logic for having the passport pretty pointless. 

Just so you know where I stand on the matter let me simply state that I am sceptical and see the true purpose of the proposed passports as a way to control the population by stripping away individual rights and freedoms, and at least in this country being introduced as an Universal ID document to replace the Social Services Card which the Government tried and failed to make conditional before applying for a driving licence, passport, etc. So assuming the passports are made "voluntary" and I choose not to get one, it is likely, judging from past performance, that the Government will over time expand the purpose/scope of the card (despite what they may initially promise) such that I will be precluded from accessing Government services, or worse still being told where I can or cannot go, who I can or cannot socialise with, etc. because I don't have the correct 'papers'.

In short I see it as a first step towards an Orwellian state, the beginnings of which we are already witnessing.

So who benefits from the passports and how?

Perhaps those who eagerly await the introduction of these passports might want to enlighten me. I'd appreciate hearing genuinely held opinions and not those parrotted by the stenographers in main stream media so I can try understand the rationale and get my head around it.

Thanks.


----------



## losttheplot (18 Apr 2020)

Looks like there's not enough evidence for immunity yet.









						'No evidence' of immunity in recovered patients - WHO
					

There is currently no evidence to support the belief that people who have recovered from coronavirus then have immunity, the World Health Organization has said.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## Daddy Ireland (18 Apr 2020)

Andrew Murphy said:


> Let me start by stating that I am in no way undermining the seriousness of Covid-19 on the vulnerable in society but I cannot figure out why or how the proposed _immunity passports_ are going to help control the disease, especially given the comparatively small number of people that go on to experience serious effects/death out of a total population of c. 6 million.
> 
> Despite reading widely I cannot find a valid argument that supports the notion that the passport will control the disease, for what I have read the virus mutates, so the anti-bodies that result from having had the disease and/or vaccine are only relevant to that particular strand of the virus - much like the annual flu. Therefore a passport stating I have had the virus/vaccine does not guarantee that I am not carrying or suffering from a mutation, which kind of renders the logic for having the passport pretty pointless.
> 
> ...


Well David Icke for one would agree totally with your thoughts.


----------



## Andrew Murphy (18 Apr 2020)

@losttheplot thanks, that's interesting from the point of view that if it turns out to be true then vaccines will not work either, in which case the medical arguments in favour of immunity passports, whatever they are, will not stack up. Big pharma will not be happy with that outcome. That said I think the decision will be taken to introduce them irrespective of whether they are medically beneficial or not. Time will tell.

@Daddy Ireland thanks for your contribution. David Icke is at least making an attempt to warn people of the encroaching police state in the UK and consequential erosion of individual rights and freedom. It is unfortunate that he conflates the unknown health risks of 5G with the coronavirus as this distracts from his message.


----------



## losttheplot (18 Apr 2020)

Andrew Murphy said:


> @losttheplot thanks, that's interesting from the point of view that if it turns out to be true then vaccines will not work either, in which case the medical arguments in favour of immunity passports, whatever they are, will not stack up. Big pharma will not be happy with that outcome. That said I think the decision will be taken to introduce them irrespective of whether they are medically beneficial or not. Time will tell.
> 
> @Daddy Ireland thanks for your contribution. David Icke is at least making an attempt to warn people of the encroaching police state in the UK and consequential erosion of individual rights and freedom. It is unfortunate that he conflates the unknown health risks of 5G with the coronavirus as this distracts from his message.


The article doesn't mention vaccines. It's more aimed at the reliability of the tests to determine immunity. If these tests aren't highly reliable it makes it difficult to implement immunity passports, since you can't reliably determine who's immune.


----------



## Archer1 (19 Apr 2020)

There's no rationale really. And any rational thinking person can see that. It's not in the realm of conspiracy theories. It's a fairly logical thought process as far as I can see.
Makes not a jot of sense. A lot of this Corona thinking and measures don't make any logical, demonstrable sense to me tbh.
But you're effectively ostracised if you dare to use your head, discuss, debate and think for yourself. It's very Emperor's New Clothes.

The thing about it and the social services card is interesting. My concern apart from personal freedom and choice really is that you cannot trust the government to protect your data, you simply can't. Hackers are always strides ahead, once you give it over, it's no longer private. Now, that said, that applies to essentially all the information we give over every day to institutions, insurers, state services, universities, banks, etc.


----------



## Ceist Beag (20 Apr 2020)

FWIW Andrew I would share your concerns about any move to stamp passports with information such as this and restricting your movement on the basis of same. Even if someone in government were able to make a persuasive argument related to Covid 19, as to why this type of thing should be introduced, this would be a step in a very dangerous direction and it would be very hard to reverse from it.
Also just to point out I am far from a conspiracy theory advocate! It's just that this idea would not sit well with me.


----------



## Leo (20 Apr 2020)

Andrew Murphy said:


> It is unfortunate that he conflates the unknown health risks of 5G with the coronavirus as this distracts from his message.



Anyone suggesting 5G is a danger should stay indoors. You know visible light contains more energy than 5G, so you've exposed yourself to more radiation from the screen of the device you posted that message on.

Anyone wanting to discuss vaccination and passports can use another thread, but I'm locking down the 5G nonsense.


----------

