This far in it’s boring to listen to nonsense

Maybe the travails of Lockdown 3 are getting to me, or maybe my senility rate is accelerating, but recently I’ve begun to notice that my ability to tolerate Covid-idiocy in any form – not least rent-a-mouth “so called experts” being invited on the national media programmes to spout lunacy – is growing tissue-paper thin.

For my sins yesterday, I found myself watching a section of ITV’s early morning programme Good Morning Britain, hosted by Ben Shephard and Kate Garroway, on which various guests had been invited to discuss the UK’s vaccination roll-out, the imposition of “new arrivals to the UK” (whether returning Brits or visitors/tourists) quarantine rules and – amongst other related topics – the pros and cons of the Government potentially introducing a version of what is called a “vaccine passport”.

The three guests to the segment were a doctor and a radio presenter – both males as it happens – and then a young female called Dominique Samuels, aged 22, who came with the tag line “commentator”, albeit that at the outset nobody (least of all myself) was any the wiser as to what this meant and/or indeed what her particular expertise or status was that qualified her to join the debate – well, beyond possessing a motor-mouth.

The bulk of the conversation addressed the success of the initial phase of the vaccination roll-out; which priority groups might make the cut for “phase 2” of the same; next week’s the much-anticipated Government announcement of how exactly the UK was going to gradually emerge from Lockdown 3 (and when); how ready the quarantine hotels were for the just-begun regime for new “arrivals to UK” that began on Monday; and attendant matters.

The reason for Ms Samuels’ inclusion eventually became apparent when the subject of vaccinations was examined in detail.

Mentions were made of the fact that at least 90% of Over-80s had taken the vaccine and that – although having the vaccine at all was entirely voluntary – some groups (BAME, the poor and/or deprived etc.) were still reluctant to have it.

The reasons for this included lack of knowledge/understanding of the need for a vaccination programme at all and/or negative mis-information about the potential adverse side-effects of the vaccines being administered that had been gleaned from the internet and/or spread by word of mouth in certain communities.

All involved but Ms Samuels were solidly behind both the advantages of the UK’s vaccination programme and the principle that taking a vaccine should be a matter of voluntary choice. Most were behind initiatives that sought to reassure “waverers” and/or might convince those who were resisting having the vaccine to change their minds.

And then Ms Samuels was invited to give her view(s).

She was not against vaccination per se – towards the end of the discussion she let slip that she would have the jab herself when the opportunity to have one came her way – but it then became apparent that her specific hobby-horses were that everyone had the right to refuse to have one (all her fellow contributors had previously admitted this anyway) and she was absolutely and resolutely opposed to the idea of introducing “vaccination passports”.

Her reason for this was that it would be a giant step towards totalitarian, Big Brother, Nanny state-style scrutiny of individuals and a fundamental invasion of privacy that must be resisted.

Other contributors pointed out that her concerns were unwarranted. For decades – if Brits wanted to travel, either on business or pleasure, to a number of Middle-East, Far East, African or other countries around the world – they had to provide evidence of having had various jabs against infectious diseases [I cannot recall the details, but I think yellow fever and possibly malaria were two of those to be protected against] before they’d be allowed upon planes flying to said countries.

A “passport” demonstrating that someone had been vaccinated against Covid-19 could be a smart way of identifying who might and might not be at risk when boarding overseas flights – or indeed when disembarking from them.

Ms Samuels’ point seemed to be that it was none of anybody’s business if someone chose not to have the vaccination. It might result in those who hadn’t had one being discriminated against.

The doctor pointed out the all-round benefits of having the vaccination – it protected not only the person vaccinated, but all those around them as well as those they ever came into contact with. It would also assist the tracing of  “at risk” or “infectious” people to be done more quickly and efficiently.

It was Ms Samuels’ case that everyone – if they wished – had the right not to have the vaccination and not to be discriminated if they did not have it.

They also had every right to go about their daily business, just much as anyone who had been vaccinated, and to restrict them in any way because they hadn’t been vaccinated was a fundamental breach of their human rights.

Her response to the “but we’ve had to produce evidence of having had certain jabs in order to visit certain countries for decades” argument was that this was different – overseas countries were entitled to insist on whatever they wished as regards jabs to be administered upon potential visitors, but apparently the UK was not.

To this onlooking oldie, Ms Samuels’ stance on these matters was ridiculous.

You cannot – at one and the same time – criticise the Government roundly for “not having locked down the country immediately” a year ago (as New Zealand did) and then also lamblast it for potentially seeking to prevent vaccine refusnikcs going out into the UK world at large to do exactly as they wish without any restrictions whatsoever.

To my mind you have to do whatever it takes render the entire population safe before you do anything else. If vaccine passports would assist or work, they should/must be considered.

For the life of me, I couldn’t understand Ms Samuels’ logic generally.

I’d be prepared to bet a fiver that bet she uses social media and a computer most days.

I don’t pretend to understand the half of it, but I believe that most “communication” technologies collect personal data about every website that every user visits or even researches by means of a search engine.

That’s why, if you look up “Holidays in Tunisia” on your smartphone, within hours your computer begins being inundated with advertisements for package holidays to Tunisia.

The truth is that, frankly, any nation worth its salt – let alone any would-be fascist, totalitarian Big Brother-style state – already knows practically everything worth knowing about every one of us.

And what’s more, they also probably know plenty more information about us that isn’t even worth knowing!

Which is why I cannot see the problem with a move to introduce vaccination passports.

However, my attitude is that – whilst everyone should have the right to decline a vaccine (whether because they don’t want one as a matter of principle, because they’ve been frightened by mis-information or even just because they’re stupid) – the thing about having the right to choose to do something – or not – comes with the attendant consequences of whichever decision you make.

It’s called personal responsibility.

Please do feel free to call me Comrade Stalin if you want, but it seems entirely logical to me that – if someone opts not to have a Covid-19 vaccination and then deliberately goes out “into the world” and acts as though no pandemic exists by not social distancing and not taking precautions … and thereby ends up contracting the Covid-19 virus – they shouldn’t be surprised in the slightest (nor be entitled to complain) if they are subsequently sent right to the back of the queue as regards receiving hospital treatment at all, never mind afterwards being given any future chance to have a vaccine.