Letter to MP on 'vaccine passports' (Domestic Covid status certificates)

Subject: Please oppose acclimatization to coerced consent for medical experiments and procedures

 

Dear NNN NNN,

Thank you again for your previous reply to my correspondence, it was appreciated. Again, I correspond with you as my representative in Parliament as I live in [Postcode].
I write to you so soon again as this is a treacherous period putting our liberty in jeopardy.
Even at length I omit important points, please forgive my verbosity on this issue:

Domestic 'vaccine passports' (Domestic Covid status certificates).

Please, I urge you to oppose (not abstain on) proposals and legislation for domestic vaccine/covid status certificates.

International travel vaccine certificates for Covid may be necessary, as they are with other diseases.

Your party leader Kier Starmer is correct to say of domestic vaccine certificates:

"...we don't actually want to go down this road." (source: Telegraph - is.gd/Y8cSKV).

It is a dangerous detour from 'the roadmap to freedom' onto a road to authoritarianism because coerced consent for medical procedures is immoral, sinister and discriminatory.

Domestic Covid status certificates would be a waste:

60%+ adults have been vaccinated, including virtually all over 65s and otherwise vulnerable (source: UK Gov - is.gd/xJPJmO).

The stage 3 trials data on these vaccines indicates that they are (tend towards) 100% effectiveness at preventing death from Covid (source: Monica Gandhi MD, MPH - is.gd/aAB04z).

"...deaths for [unvaccinated] people <65 years without underlying predisposing conditions are remarkably uncommon" (source: Elsevier Public Health - is.gd/GIxhRg)

"The corrected median estimates of IFP [Infection Fatality Proportion] for [unvaccinated] people aged lower than 70 years is currently 0.05%, which, for the population less vulnerable to deaths, is similar to influenza." (source: The BMJ - is.gd/pUF6EV), ie the risk to the as yet unvaccinated healthy under 65s of mortality from Covid is about the same as for 'flu, for which the UK has never remotely considered anything as extreme as vaccine certificates. Moreover, the vaccine trials also indicate 100% effectiveness at preventing hospitilization from Covid, thus protecting the NHS from being overrun (the stated point of the emergency measures). By the summer we will likely be aproaching a 80-90% vaccinated adult population.

Four points on the possible evolution of 'variants of concern' (ie the evolution - from continued transmission and infection - of variants with higher risk of mortality outcome and also to some degree may evade current vaccines):

(1) The vaccines do not stop transmission or infection,

(2) The virus will evolve beyond the borders of the UK.

It is therefore baffling as to what domestic vaccine certificates would be intended to stop.

Moreover:

(3) Coronaviruses mutate more slowly than viruses like influenza (source: Nature - is.gd/QqtZ0F) meaning that there is a very reasonable chance that vaccines will be effective against possible variants of concern for some time, and repurposed vaccines will catch variants of concern even more effectively than the repurposed 'flu vaccines we have every winter.

(4) It is a fact of evolutionary biology that the virus will evolve in a benign direction anyway (source: New Scientist - is.gd/QOlxoZ), and the occurrence of variants of concern become increasingly unlikely.

Macmillan Cancer Support estimated that around 50,000 ‘missing cancer diagnoses’ (source: Macmillan - is.gd/tOTGTz) are unknowingly facing mortality as a consequence of this Public Health Covid myopia. It is one of many desperately neglected public health issues in government policy and action. Public health is about improving well being as a whole. Resources must be redeployed intelligently, they cannot be singularly wasted on the likes of useless Covid test and vaccine passports, while irresponsibly neglecting other issues in public health and other public interests.

They would be immoral:

The vaccines will be on phase 4 post-marketing surveillance studies for some time, new data about their risks is still being assessed, and they can still be regarded as experimental.

To prohibit the use of services (venues/hotels/whatever) unless you consent to a medical procedure or experiment (take the vaccine/Covid test) is coerced consent, not voluntary consent. This is immoral and why a medical procedure or experiment that is practised without voluntary consent is illegal in common law and international law.
Point number one of the 1948 Nuremberg code states:
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." (source: Wikipedia - is.gd/ifk4C2)
UN Treaty, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:
"...it is forbidden to submit a person without his free consent to medical or scientific experiment." (source: UN - is.gd/Podcy3)

The safety assessments of the vaccines and their evident efficacy in fighting the virus does not negate your right to your opinion and your right to your decision as to what to do with your body. Vaccine certificates would engender an an abandonment of the autonomy over your own body and an acclimatization to coerced consent to medical experiments and procedures which is horribly unprincipled and abusive.

Please be wise to the fudge of a certificate that requires either the vaccination or Covid test. It would still be an acclimatization to coerced consent to medical experiments and procedures. It is immoral and must be opposed.

They would be unnecessary:

No single death or suffering is good news. Both waves in 2020/21 were massively challenging to our health infrastructure and a testament to the strength of the individuals on the healthcare front line. Should this epidemic have been as bad or worse than predicted by SAGE last March - half a million deaths - then there might have been a case to say that some kind of immunity certification could have been a national emergency measure to help deal with the crisis. However the epidemic has not been on this scale and no reputable science predicts any possible future wave probably will. The Birmingham Nightingale emergency field hospital has just been shut down without ever having been used (source: Birmingham Live - is.gd/8slutK), similarly with other mostly unused Nightingales. A smaller winter wave in the future cannot be ruled out, but as Prof Chris Whitty himself has recently said,

"every few years you get a bad flu year where 20,000 to 25,000 die of it. The last time we had that was three years ago and no one noticed it. ...So it is clear we are going to have to manage [Covid], at some point, rather like we manage the flu." (source: Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/01/no-lockdowns-britain-will-treat-coronavirus-like-flu-says/amp/).

They would be illiberal:

A promise of 'temporary' vaccine certificates is no mitigation, please be wise to this.

Firstly because - even as a temporary measure - it would engender the acclimatization to state and corporate control over your body and your thinking by denying you access to services if you do not make the 'preferred decision' over what to do with your own body. This would damage our civilisation on many levels, not least on the dark precedent it sets.

Secondly because 'temporary' is the promise of government measures that one way or another almost always become permanent anyway (Eg, Income tax was passed on the basis that it was a temporary measure in 1848, source: UK Parliament https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/taxation/overview/incometaxbolished/)

They would be discriminatory:
The argument that vaccine certificates help us get 'back to normal' is monstrously contradictory. Being denied services based on your physical status is apartheid. Bio-apartheid is not normal. Not for the UK. Offering the vaccine as a choice between being a 1st or 2nd class citizen is not actually a choice, it is coercion.

They would be invasive:

Your physical, medical status is a private matter. It is information that is between you and whoever you consent to share it with (eg your doctor, family, community members). There is no way of enabling verifiable vaccine certificates without a central database of medical records and/or without the involvement of private technology corporations. Coercion into sharing this private information with the state or private enterprises or multinational technology corporations is a violation of your natural property rights. Your body is your property, it is not corporate property and it is not government property.

They are not wanted:

Please also be wise to correctly interpret opinion research. It often shows most people would be willing to show proof of vaccination or negative test so as to gain access to services (venues etc). Much of this opinion is driven by a willingness to submit to the coercion because of a desperation for natural social environments that are still forbidden by the state. It does not demonstrate that most people are in principle fine with the idea of coerced consent to medical intervention. To say that it does is a fallacy equivalent to saying that a person being tortured that agrees with the torturer's proposal "We'll stop torturing you if you let us rob your home" means they think robbery is ok. No it doesn't.

Opening up society to the way it should naturally be is urgent. But the wrong decision will set sinister precedents and mechanisms for a surveillance state, intrusive coercion by the state and corporate bodies, social division and apartheid culture, deepening mistrust of agents of the state, further acclimatisation to state and corporate control and other tyrannical measures; domestic vaccine/covid status certification is the road to illiberal, discriminatory control of the individual and not the road to freedom.

Yours

NNN NNN

Constituent

[Postcode]