The Government is considering introducing Covid “certificates” without which people would be unable to attend larger events post-lockdown(s). Reports suggest the documents would show whether individuals have had a vaccine or tested negative in the last few days. The Guardian has the story.
Coronavirus “certificates” that would show whether people have had a vaccine or a negative test are being considered by the Government as a way of getting people back to larger events, the Culture Secretary has said.
Oliver Dowden told Sky News that he hoped people would be able to return “in significant numbers” from June 21st if “all goes to plan”.
“We’re piloting the different things that will enable that to happen – clearly it will have to be done in a Covid-secure way,” he said.
There would be tests of one-way systems, masks and hand-hygiene, he added. “Another thing that we are considering is a Covid certification, and we will be testing whether we can use Covid certification to help facilitate the return of sports.”
He said final decisions had not been made and the department was working with the Cabinet Office minister, Michael Gove, who is leading a review.
Dowden said: “Social distancing makes it very, very difficult… for theatre productions to be run profitably. It makes it very, very difficult for our football clubs to run profitably if you have to have those large distances between people.” But the Government was proceeding with caution because it wanted to ensure a “permanent reopening”.
The Sun reports that the scheme will be “piloted indoors at the World Snooker Championship at Sheffield’s legendary Crucible on April 17th, and then outdoors too during the FA cup final on May 15th at Wembley”.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: A reader has got in touch to point out that if the vaccines don’t stop people catching the disease and transmitting it, but only reduce the severity of the symptoms, what’s the point of vaccine “certificates”? People allowed into football matches who’ve been vaccinated will still be able to infect others.
Yesterday I received a Government leaflet – “COVID-19 Vaccination; A Guide for Older Adults” – along with an invitation to have the vaccination. It includes the following sentence (p.11): “We do not yet know whether it [the vaccine] will stop you from catching and passing on the virus.”
This is astonishing and contradicts all the propaganda that the Government pumps out daily. If it isn’t known whether the vaccine will prevent infection or transmission of COVID-19, how can it possibly be used as a ‘passport’ when the passport holder could have – and be able to pass on – the virus? In the Government’s own words, the statement on page 11 undermines its whole case for vaccination passports.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Great article. Thanks for this very informative insight into the peer review process.
“Science” turned into “Official Science” and waved through for political purposes.
Thank you for a thought-provoking article. It challenges how we, as lay people, trust scientific reports and those behind them.
In one organisation where I used to work, we wrote engineering reports. These had to be thoroughly checked by a fellow employee and then authorised by our group leader. The group leader would quiz the checker thoroughly – “to shake his tree” – to see that he had grasped the report’s contents and could defend them. If the checker fell out of his tree, he would return bruised to the author and demand corrections.
This seems to be quite a rigorous process. Authors may tend to seek kudos and over-sell their reports. But if that task is given to a checker who does not stand to gain anything, there will be more critical appraisal.
Peer review is no guarantee of truth or accuracy. The reviewer of extensive reports or papers do not have the time to check every claim thoroughly. ——-Classic example is “The Hockey Stick Graph”
Indeed. Yet another nail in the coffin of peer review – so-named, I guess, because it tends to just ‘peer’ rather than to check.
We always hear from activists that something is “peer reviewed”. And the idea is to give the impression to the general public who are reluctant to question anything to do with science that this is all perfectly understood or settled knowledge. It may well be, but not because it has been peer reviewed. It is only good quality science if the scientific method has been followed and the results can be replicated.
Interesting but I have one lingering question: who pays the for-profit journals? How do they make their money? In other words, if so much of what is published is garbage, who is interested in paying for garbage studies?
Excellent point
Whenever I come across an organisation unfamiliar to me I start by trying to find out how they are funded and who runs it
An interesting read; thanks
I guess some kind of quality control is needed to prevent overload, but I can’t help thinking that it’s preferable to have random junk published than having only specially selected junk that fits a narrative
You’re right as in addition to the random junk there will be the innovative ideas and theories that may currently be suppressed because it hurts too many expert reputations, might undermine a lucrative industry or might benefit humanity in general.
Exactly – any not just innovative ideas and theories but also debunkings of nonsense like “thermostat theory” as stewart puts it.
You know this.
I know this.
But who are we?
Over the last 25 years I trained more than 20,000 people in project management peer review on some of the world’s most complex products. I became the global lead in my craft and learned more from my delegates than I ever knew myself.
Whilst this doesn’t guarantee I’m always right, it does entitle me to an opinion.
Peer Review requires two essential components: subject matter expertise (you know what you’re talking about); and a relative level of political independence.
This independence can vary. For example, a low value, low risk, low complexity project with little strategic importance can be reviewed by your mate on the next desk.
Now change all those ‘lows’ to ‘highs’ and you’re looking for a different beast, probably from outside your political organisation who can speak without fear of consequence (‘its rubbish!’) or personal benefit.
Compromise either the expertise or independence and the review is not only meaninglessness but dangerous, conferring integrity where there is none.
Humility and an open mind are also essential components.
The COVID business has already led to a process of secondary peer review, where published papers are dissected (and destroyed) by worldwide people with an interest and expertise. This alone makes one question the formal process of anonymous review by selected individuals. I have been a reviewer and have experienced much of the author’s problems. I have also written papers and report another side to the whole thing. I submitted one paper to a prestigious journal and it was turned down – with the rider that if I was prepared to pay $1500 they would publish it online. I submitted elsewhere, to another prestigious journal and it was accepted instantly. My stats site told me last week it had had 10000 reads…
Perhaps all papers should appear online first, and those who put them up can be persuaded to go to print, or not, depending on the online critics.