It makes “little sense” to impose any kind of vaccine certification scheme, an expert panel of scientists has told a cross-party group of MPs, since Government data indicates that “vaccinated people over 30 years are now more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated”.
The comments were made at a hearing for an enquiry into Covid passes set up by the Pandemic Response and Recovery All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). The group, established in the autumn to scrutinise the Government’s response to the pandemic, will gather information from doctors, public health officials, business owners and parliamentary colleagues before setting out its conclusion to Government ministers.
Co-chaired by Conservative MP Esther McVey and Labour MP Graham Stringer, the APPG says it will examine the pros and cons of such a scheme and the rationale behind it, as well as global evidence of whether they work.
Esther McVey said:
We need to understand the role these passports would play and hear from Government ministers who support a potential scheme, businesses that would be affected, together with expert opinions of scientists and health experts. We need to look at how the scheme is working in Scotland and fully understand the implications introducing Covid passports could have.
Coupled with that we need a full cost analysis and scientific evidence if we are to impose such a measure on people. We also need to explore the possibility that the introduction of passports could exclude some sections of society, when its supposed intention is to support the entire U.K. population. Therefore, evidence sessions such as these are so important, it allows us to get a full picture before we make a decision and put our case to Government.
Graham Stringer added: “If the Government wishes to infringe on our freedoms, then it must have overwhelming evidence to do so. As yet that evidence does not exist and has not been produced and it should not be allowed to proceed without it.”
The APPG heard evidence from former Director of the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (Wales) Dr Roland Salmon, Professor of Industrial Economics at Nottingham University David Paton, and Dr David Bell, public health physician and former global coordinator of malaria diagnostics for the World Health Organisation (WHO).
All three argued against the passes, which are already in force in Scotland and Wales and reported to be potentially part of Government’s Plan B in England should reported Covid infections keep rising. The scientists argued there was insufficient scientific and clinical evidence to judge the effectiveness of such a scheme, that being vaccinated did not stop transmission, and that the policy would cause significant economic damage and further erode public confidence in public health measures.
Professor David Paton commented:
There is no obvious sign from countries that have already implemented similar certification schemes that there are any benefits in terms of reducing infections. But we know there will be huge costs to the economy; nightclubs in Scotland have reported trade levels dropping by almost half since the introduction of their vaccine passport scheme while leaked documents show that the Government itself estimates the cost of implementing Plan B in England to be between £11 billion and £18 billion.
Covid passes are a heavy-handed and invasive approach to public health. They pose an unacceptable risk to rights and individual liberties and could jeopardise trust in public health measures at a critical time.
Dr Roland Salmon said:
From a public health standpoint, it makes little sense to impose any kind of vaccine certification scheme. If the vaccine is to protect others around you, then it needs to greatly reduce transmission. Studies from Public Health England and Imperial College only show reductions in household transmission of 30-50%; not enough and even then, probably temporary. Thus, a policy of targeting vaccination to those at highest risk, allowing broader post-infection immunity to develop in the wider community to prevent spread is likely to be a much more effective approach.
Dr David Bell added:
It is unclear what vaccine passports will achieve in the U.K. We must recognise that unvaccinated people are unlikely to cause any more risk to others than the vaccinated, and perhaps less. We know that vaccinated people who become infected commonly have similar infectiousness as unvaccinated people, while Public Health England data indicates that vaccinated people over 30 years are now more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. We also know that unvaccinated people will, in general, suffer more symptoms, so are more likely to abstain from community gatherings when infected, while infected vaccinated people continue to be active, potentially increasing risk to the vulnerable.
The APPG will hear further evidence next month.
Stop Press: Prof David Paton appeared on LBC yesterday to talk to Maajid Nawaz about why vaccine passports are such a terrible idea.
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.
“By the time you read this, the $110 billion behemoth may be a smoking ruin – the biggest casualty yet of ‘Go woke, go broke’.”
Now that would put a smile on my face.
Anyway, congratulations on all you have done Toby. Even if you haven’t helped to kill them they are certainly severely wounded. Let this be a warning to others.
Well done and thank you.
I’ve taken steps to remove paypal from my financial life.
They were already stepping on civil liberties, but their threat to steal customers’ cash because they offended paypal in some unspecified manner is just too much.
Am I . . . Spartacus?!?
Looks like paypal are running scared….
https://summit.news/2022/10/13/paypal-appears-to-be-desperately-offering-bribes-of-15-to-stop-droves-of-people-cancelling-accounts/
Expose have just released the same news.
Wonderful.
Turned out I hadn’t used Paypal for ages anyway. Should have cancelled it years ago.
“Dan Schulman, the president and CEO of PayPal, gave an interview earlier this year entitled: ‘The thing that separates good companies from great ones: trust.’”
No it isn’t, it’s reputation – ask Jeremy Ratner. Reputation keeps existing customers, attracts others by recommendation, and keeps and attracts investors.
Getting a reputation for not being a reliable provider of a service which can be withdrawn instantly for spurious and subjective reasons will neither keep nor attract customers.
Spending shareholders’ money on ideology that loses customers, reduces shareholder value will neither keep nor attract investors as the pompous Mr Schulman has now found out.
This also shows the best company/market regulator is not Government nor bureaucracies, but the consumer.
I love the title of this article, I certainly don’t think it’s ‘too vainglorious’, and at the same time all of us who closed our PayPal accounts in protest can share in taking the credit. (I had to get a password reminder before I could close my account, which I had rarely ever used.)
In the Spectator article Toby Young said: “On the one hand, PayPal’s demise would send a message to the financial services sector that trying to police your customers’ speech is a terrible idea. But on the other, lots of small depositors would lose their money.”
I think small depositors should withdraw their money from their PayPal accounts before they lose it. It’s not Toby Young’s fault that PayPal cannot be trusted.
Not a penny left in mine.
It was amazing to me, when in the process of shutting down my PayPal account at just how many standing payments I’d set up went via PayPal! Even The Spectator…
I look forward to seeing Paypal’s scalp dangling from your belt, Toby.
I have a grand total of 50p in my PayPal account, and rarely use it.
Am I more of an embuggerance to them if I keep this account open?
I don’t think PayPal would notice that you have only 50p in your account, but they have definitely noticed how many people have closed their accounts since Paypal started to attack people’s freedom in the last few weeks.
Count me sceptical. They are far too entrenched now in the online shopping world and without real competition there- merchants and customers just love its ease of use and reach.
MasterCard folded its competitive effort because of that, not that they’d been more trustworthy.
I love your line on whether they’ll now fine themselves for that misinformation…
You may well be correct JB but they will have had a good kicking.
Cancelled my 25 year old PayPal account after they cancelled Toby and others. Hope they go under if they don’t learn their lesson.
I find it really upsetting that I can only cancel my PayPal account once …. and I’ve done it.
I’m consoling myself by googling “boycott PayPal” several times a day
Surely the AUP breaches human rights and in the EU/UK would be illegal and hence null and void. Making themselves judge, jury and executioner even for goings most of us disagree with and are criminal, e.g. money laundering or fraud means that they are subjecting people to arbitrary justice. Actually just looked article 12 UNDOHR. no one shall be subject to arbitrary interference…?
The Daily Sceptic isn’t the only journalism and “skeptic” site that’s been de-platformed or demonetized by PayPal. The conservative investigative journalism site UncoverDC.com also had this happen to them …. almost three years ago! PayPal or Twitter have never un-suspended this site and its founder, Tracy Beanz.
Apparently I’m the only journalist who thought to do a story on this. In my recent Substack dispatch, I interview Tracy Beanz, who talks about some of the ‘workarounds” she employed to get around this brazen censorship.
Her site is also called a “Covid conspiracy” site. This piece of disinformation is of interest to me as I have written many of the Covid stories UncoverDC.com published. Nobody else would publish many of these stories. And I can’t think of a sentence I would change in any of them.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/shes-still-standing
Hats off to you and Tracy Bill. Not many of your type remaining.
I sent 2 mails to PayPal’s CEO & to corporate affairs asking clear questions about their policies & impact for me as an account holder. Response? NOTHING. The arrogance of these Bit Tech companies is breathtaking.
So I closed my account directly. In the process I applied another Daily Sceptic commenter’s advice to “..select the option to have them delete all your data too then you can leave a comment.”
My departing comment was this:
“I’m thoroughly disgusted by PayPal’s anti-free speech policy. Why would you use a financial service provider which can block your account at any time without providing any reasons, and then steal $2500- from you as a “fine” for your supposed transgression. My decision has been confirmed by ZERO response to my several emails to PayPal asking them if there was a reasonable explanation for recent actions. So much for customer service. Not to mention transparency. From now on, I shall be telling everyone I know to close their PayPal account.“