In light of yesterday’s announcement about vaccine passports at the Downing Street press briefing, I’m reposting this original piece by Dr. David Livermore, Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of East Anglia, a member of HART, and a contributor to Collateral Global. David isn’t opposed to immigration officers demanding to see evidence that you’ve been double jabbed as a condition of entering their country. But he does draw the line at internal use of vaccine passports – as a condition of attending a pop concert, for instance. He’s done a back-of-the-envelope calculation and concluded that admitting the unvaccinated, who will soon make up no more than 10% of the population, won’t pose a major risk and in any event will be outnumbered by the vaccinated who can still transmit the disease.
Suppose a concert is attended by 1,000 people, 900 vaccinated and 100 unvaccinated, which is about the current split. Assume also that vaccines confer around 80% protection – 95% for Pfizer and Moderna and 63-76% for AZ, and that 20% of the unvaccinated are immune through prior infection.
On that basis, the audience will include 80 unvaccinated ‘vulnerables’ and 180 potential vaccine failures. In other words, unvaccinated ‘hazards’ are outnumbered 2:1 by the vaccinated ‘hazards’. ZOE app data, showing that infections in the (large) vaccinated population are beginning to outnumber those in the (small and diminishing) unvaccinated population illustrate how, nationally, we are on track to reach such ratios.
In these circumstances, excluding the unvaccinated won’t dramatically alter the risk to the audience. Rather, the good news is that 740 of the 1000 attendees ([80% x 900]+[20% x 100]) are protected by successful vaccination or prior infection and this proportion, replicated across the population outside, should give sufficient herd immunity to prevent the virus regaining traction. Moreover, it’s generally accepted that vaccination gives better than 80% protection against severe infection, meaning that the vaccinated vulnerables aren’t at much risk.
As for the 80 unvaccinated vulnerables, have we not reached the point where it is their business if they choose to hazard more severe infection? They may also smoke or drink excessively. Or, despite limited mountaineering experience, join a commercial climb of Mt Everest, as promoted by this Everest Expedition service, whose blurb includes the wonderful encouragement: “If you want to experience what it feels like to be on the highest point on the planet and have strong economic background to compensate for your old age and your fear of risks, you can sign up for the VVIP Mount Everest Expedition Service.”
The civil rights case against vaccine passports is well-known. But the statistical case – showing that they’d do very little to reduce transmission – deserves a wider audience. Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Nightclub owners are furious with the Government about vaccine passports, according to MailOnline.
Stop Press 2: Professor Livermore has been in touch to point out how bonkers yesterday’s announcement was in light of the SAGE modelling.
Announcing – on the day that nightclubs re-open – that passports will be required two-and-a-half months hence is bizarre, however one looks at it. If they think nightclubs are such a hazard, why allow 2.5 month opening without controls? All SAGE’s modelling (below) indicates peak infections will come long before then and, for once – given that the Delta variant is clearly able to spread in summer – I think they are likely right.
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.
The problem is that it isn’t a ‘BBC licence’. It is a complex fee that allows people to ‘watch live TV by any source, or any BBC programme by any source’.
I’m sure everyone would be absolutely fine with needing TV licence to watch BBC content, but no fee for anything else. Well, the BBC wouldn’t be fine with this, because if it was done this way their income would drop to near zero.
We’ll probably get the worst compromise, where the BBC ends up being funded entirely via taxation (perhaps by introducing an internet tax). Certainly, the last 3 years have demonstrated to government that the BBC is rather important in terms of controlling the masses.
Exactly. I suspect of lot of people who say they think the license should be scrapped just want more “free” stuff, so they are happy for the BBC to continue, funded by the taxpayer. They’d probably vote to get rid of TV commercials, too, as long as it was all still free.
You can have free TV by simply not paying the licence fee which millions do already. Let those pay who want to do so.
Most people I talk to want rid of the licence fee because they are sick and tired of BBC Leftisht bias which it spews forth on a daily basis.
I thought all of the TV channels were good at promoting the government agenda during covid and for the climate Ponzi scheme.
The BBC already is funded by taxation, that is what the licence fee is – an hypothecated tax.
It is in fact a broadcast receiver licence required to watch ANY broadcast radio and tv. To start with there only was the BBC so it made no difference. In fact to begin with two types of licence: radio receiver licence; tv licence. The latter evolved into joint radio & tv licence, although those with no tv still had to buy a radio licence. Finally the radio licence was abolished as everyone just about, had a tv.
It means we pay twice in some cases: one to receive the broadcast, second time via advertising revenues passed on in the price of goods, or via subscriptions for satellite or streaming involving live content.
It really would be very simple to encrypt the service and charge a subscription, but then that would mean competition for the licence fee money. There has been no excuse since post-1945 for BBC to be funded via a receiver licence fee when advertising could easily have funded it, and in more recent times encryption and subscription.
Truth is, the Government doesn’t want to lose control.
As taxes go it’s the kind I mind the least, extremely easy to avoid entirely.
How do you do that? Asking for a friend…
You don’t pay – If anyone knocks at your door, say “no thank you” and close the door on them. If you don’t like the threatening letters you can sign a declaration online and they will most likely leave you alone for 2 years.
Exactly so
Nit picking. It’s a poll tax.
In Australia, the ABC derives all of its funding from general revenue.
Even though they act as a megaphone for our extreme left wing parties, our “Conservative” government gave them a hefty pay rise before the last election, only for the ABC to then actively campaign against them.
I suspect you will be in for a similar future if and when the licence fee is scrapped.
Makes not a shred of difference.
I think that the BBC should be behind a paywall and so those who want to quaff of the Kool-aid can fill their boots. However I am afraid that the license fee will be cancelled and put on to general taxation.
…and become even more of a government propaganda tool….
Best just get rid of the BBC.
If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving (e.g. the BBC) subsidise it!
Here is a list of BBC and labourites in their revolving door jobs:
Chairman – Gavin Davies – later a labour advisor.
Chairman – Sir Micheal Lyons – previously a labour council chief.
Ex Director General – John Birt – Labour advisor.
Ex Director General – Greg Dyke – Labour donor and candidate.
Caroline Thompson – previously Roy Jenkin’s aid.
Head of Political research – Bill Rush – Labour spin doctor.
Deputy head of PR – Catherine Rimmer – Labour spin doctor.
Director of Strategy – Ed Richards – Labour spin doctor.
Head of Radio – James Parnell – Labour Minister.
Head of Northern Ireland News – Tom Kelly – Labour Spin doctor.
Scottish News editor – Tim Luckhurst – Labour Spin doctor.
Political News editor – Joy Luckhurst – Labour Spin doctor.
Political Editor – Andre Marr – Student labour organiser.
Home News Editor – Celia Barlow – Labour MP.
Head of European Affairs – Chris Bryant – Labour MP.
Newsnight producer – Phil Woolas – Labour MP.
Foreign Correspondent – Martin Sixsmith – Labour Spin doctor.
Current affairs reporter – Ben Bradshaw – Labour minister.
Current affairs reporter – Lance Price – Labour Spin doctor.
Question time editor – Gill Penlington – Labour researcher.
News reader/ Labour expense swindler – Denis MacShane.
Not up top date I hasten to add.
Bloody hell.
Dr John completes his red pill journey on the jabs as Andrew Bridgen speaks in Parliament to a bunch of rats leaving a sinking ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvSHD_n3Lyg
I decided at the beginning of the Covid plandemic to cancel the TV License. Not regretted the decision. Have not missed the blatant propaganda or social programming. Easy solution to this is to choose to stop paying. Unfortunately that would not be the end of the BBC as the Government would still want its propaganda to continue.
I cancelled mine during the pandemic.
Don’t watch any live broadcast TV, not even GB News or Talk TV over the internet, or use iPlayer. Do stream live radio though. So I’m completely legit and not missing it.
I don’t think this say so much about the BBC as it does about people’s general tendency to want things without having to pay for them if they can.
That’s why we have constant deficits and ever bigger debts.
Ask people whether they want to abolish the BBC. Not the fee. The BBC. I bet the results aren’t quite the same.
If you had the choice to pay or not would be fine like any pay to view channel!
I would be happy to do without the BBC, but I quite like watching live sport on Sky, BT Sport and Amazon Prime. Very painful to have to pay the TV licence…
Not a massive fan of paying the children struggle session brigade
Just switch it to subscription with a pay wall. Tell everyone that their present licence fee will be treated as subscription until it runs out and they have to resubscribe at the end of their year. Within 12 months, everyone what wants the BBC will have a licence. Radio is more complicated because we messed up the move to digital. Best option is to announce that radio is covered by taxation for five years, in which time, internet radios go on the market with trade-in deals for old radios. After five years, the BBC TV subscription covers BBC radio as well or you can get a cheap radio-only subscription.
The move could literally be completed within three months. All the many court cases involving non-payment can be scrapped immediately, Capita can be got rid of and the TV Licensing organisation can be shut down or turned into a subscriptions department.
The BBC itself will have to absorb some shock and will have to slim down its empire, but that’s good for the entire business.
Come on Reform Party – get a move on!
Start speaking with conviction.
Reform Party is controlled opposition. Tice is part of the Establishment.
If 100% wanted to scrap it politicians would still keep it
Stand in the Park
Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
If that 91% stopped paying the BBC’s Poll Tax then before you could say “redundancies all round” at Broadcasting House, the Government would have come up with an alternative means of funding their Propaganda Broadcaster, and the BBC would have accepted it.
The solution is in the hands of that 91% ….. but not enough are prepared to do it.