Reducing the R0 from 2.2 to about 1.2 in real terms doesnt do a lot for spread.

Not over time it doesnt. Unless you want to keep constant, never ending social measures. The end result is the same.

And 2.2 is the figure generally accepted by most research.

Of course, against E484K the AZ would appear to affect Rt by roughly 0.0

The Tory party is now showing its true colours: globalist,

I do not understand your criticisms, are you averse to international trade and travel?
which human rights are in danger sliding into a dog turd? Can you be a little more forensic in your complaint? Are you happy that vaccines are limiting coronavirus? Do you think Sweden's strategy or New Zealand's is superior? Do you agree that international travel is a good thing and that it would be bad to mix unvaccinated people for hours together in a plane cabin? Do you recognise that twice as many Britons have died of covid19 than civilians in the 2nd world war? Should we act like it is not here?Why do that when we are only a month or two before we can lift lockdown? Do you fear a continuation of restriction after may/june? Do you believe a criminal mastermind is attempting to enslave humanity? Or is it more likely that these restrictions will turn out to be temporary and we'll get back to normal and have a nice summer? Are you specifically worried about medical notes tied to your digital identity? Can you elaborate on your fears? Which is worse? Having a digital identity or revealing the medical history linked to it? Have you responded to the government consultation of digital identities. If you have concerns, you should take part.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/matt-warmans-speech-on-digital-identity-at-identity-week-2020

You don't need to understand my criticisms and I don't to be blunt feel the need to explain them to you. I also don't feel inclined to waste a good portion of my afternoon responding to you accusatory questions (and certainly not to those you have lazily dropped in there as to what you and I would both consider to be conspiracy theories).

If you don't like what I post, then feel free to skip to the next post or another topic.

Best of luck.

Although you're not asking me these questions - I'll answer anyway.
I do not understand your criticisms, are you averse to international trade and travel?

Not at all - just against international trade and travel being dependent on a vaccination certificate.

There is no good scientific or medical reason for vaccinating everyone - if you're under 70 the virus is not really that risky is it? The estimated IFR being something like 0.05% for the under 70's.

Once the vulnerable have been vaccinated you've turned covid into a disease much, much less lethal than flu.

Why do healthy people under the age of 70 even need a vaccination? With the vulnerable vaccinated then the overwhelming majority of people will not get seriously ill if they catch covid.

So no good reason at all to make international travel dependent on a vaccination - only fear and panic and a hysterical overreaction to what is not a particularly deadly virus.
which human rights are in danger sliding into a dog turd?

Once people accept the principle that only the "safe" vaccinated people are allowed to travel - what about other areas of life? The logic will be the same for travel and for large gatherings or even smaller gatherings. If you haven't been vaccinated you're somehow "unsafe".

Which is the wrong way round - we should be saying "Thank God! The vulnerable have been vaccinated. Now they're safe - and at the same very low risk as every else"

But we've got so many things arse about tit over this virus - and behaved like frightened rabbits - and with about as much intelligence.
Are you happy that vaccines are limiting coronavirus?
Of course
Do you agree that international travel is a good thing and that it would be bad to mix unvaccinated people for hours together in a plane cabin?

Yes and no, respectively.
Do you recognise that twice as many Britons have died of covid19 than civilians in the 2nd world war?

Who knows? The government changes to death registrations means that accurate statistics are simply not available.

And when you look at the age and population adjusted stats for the last 2 decades 2020 wasn't even in the top 5. I don't think it made the top 10 - but can't remember, so may need correcting on the top 10 bit - but definitely not within the top 5 years. Strange that, for such a scary wary nasty wasty virus isn't it?
Should we act like it is not here?

This would actually have been orders of magnitude more preferable, and less damaging, than the complete idiocy, born of fear, that we've actually indulged in.
Why do that when we are only a month or two before we can lift lockdown? Do you fear a continuation of restriction after may/june?

I think they might try it - but I anticipate considerable civil unrest if they do.

"We've had the jab and I still have to wear this f**king thing on my face. What the eff?"

Although you're not asking me these questions - I'll answer anyway.

It's right to think through the implications . Here's the consent form in Wales. If they put a GOV.UK digital signature on it it could serve as a copy-proof vaccine passport.

Reducing the R0 from 2.2 to about 1.2 in real terms doesnt do a lot for spread.

Not over time it doesnt. Unless you want to keep constant, never ending social measures. The end result is the same.

And 2.2 is the figure generally accepted by most research.

Of course, against E484K the AZ would appear to affect Rt by roughly 0.0

You seem to be attributing your words to me, in the quote!