Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Power n Glory]

Vaccine passport hypocrisy: How the UK is copying China while still criticising Beijing on human rights
Neil Clark
is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

3 Sep, 2021 16:24
RT
Join RT on Telegram

The UK, like many other Western countries, is following China’s restricted access QR code digital ID system, while all the time seeking to take the moral high ground over Beijing. It’s hypocrisy at its finest.
Demonise China, while copying the worst aspects of it. That, in a nutshell, is what the Western power elites have been doing these past 18 months – under the guise of fighting a virus.

‘China’s Covid-19 QR Code surveillance state’, that was the title of an informative article published by The Financial Time in early May 2020. “Local authorities across China have rolled out health code systems, accessed through smart phone applications, to control the movement of people and identify those who had been diagnosed with the virus or visited high areas of infection. Sometimes it feels like every transaction – even entering a park – is subject to government approval,” author Don Weinland wrote.

In March 2021, in an article entitled ‘The new codes governing everyday life in China’, the AFP reported from Beijing, “It’s a ritual that has become hard to avoid in China – scanning a code with your mobile and proving your health credentials via an app, giving you the green light to go. Or not.” The article went on, “Entering residential buildings, businesses or a park, taking a plane, train or taxi, or simply trying to get home, you are well advised to make sure your phone battery is charged.”

Sounds pretty dreadful, no? But look what’s happening across the Western world today.

ALSO ON RT.COM
Emmanuel Macron’s Covid ‘health pass’ tyranny reveals the true extremism of globalist faux-centrism
In France, the ‘pass sanitaire’ – which uses QR codes scanned by a smartphone to show that someone has been vaccinated – has been in force since August. It is now obligatory to present a ‘pass sanitaire’ to gain access to cafes, restaurants, health centres, libraries, department stores, long-distance trains and a whole host of public places. Beijing and Paris. Spot the difference? Apart from the Eiffel Tower there isn’t one. Ditto Cyprus and China. Israel and China. Ireland and China. New York and China.

Meanwhile, in England and Scotland we’re told that jab-only vaccine passports – again using a smartphone app – will be introduced at the end of the month to restrict access to nightclubs and ‘large events’. That’s despite us knowing that being vaccinated doesn’t prevent someone getting ill with Covid or transmitting the virus. Vaccine passports are clearly not so much about public health, but public control. It could not be more blatant.

The great fear is that once mandated, these ‘passports’ will be extended to other venues, as in France, and won’t be temporary – no one is mentioning an end date – and will morph into China’s social credit system.

Prior to 2020, the notion that the West would copy Beijing in going down this road of digital control, and restricted access based on QR codes, would have been met with outrage – “We are the West. We stand for freedom!”

But the very same people who would have said this in 2019 are not only downplaying what vaccine passports represent in terms of loss of freedom and establishing a new, transactional relationship between the citizen and the state, but are actively promoting them as a ‘good’ thing.


UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has been fierce in his criticism of China – in February he accused Beijing of “industrial scale” human rights abuses. Yet the same Dominic Raab also said in February that vaccine passports for shops and restaurants in England could happen.

If you look across the UK establishment, including the media, it’s the same picture. Hyperventilating on China’s ‘appalling human rights record’ while ordering a ‘Chinese takeaway’ by supporting restricting access to daily life for those ‘undesirables’ – aka the ‘unvaxxed’ or ‘anti-vaxxers’ – without the right app or QR code.

Sinophobia and Sinophilia. At the same time. In the same people. How do we explain this cognitive dissonance? What the Western elites and their media stenographers want to do is to copy the Chinese system domestically – or at least the QR code/digital ID part of it (they certainly don’t want the death penalty for corruption and ‘economic crimes’) – while being opposed to Beijing’s role in international affairs.

Its growing influence in Africa, its friendship with Russia and its strategic partnership with Iran… These all explain why the elites want to turn their own countries into copies of China – with the aim being a digital ID social credit system which would massively increase control over citizens and bar ‘dissidents’ from public life – while grandstanding over Beijing and exuding 19th century-style moral superiority over it at every opportunity.

It’s not hard to notice that the more the West turns into China, the more the anti-Chinese rhetoric increases. Hypocrisy? It really is off the scale.

[Santi]

There it is:

Was wondering how long this was going to take once the FDA fully approved the Pfizer vaccine. We'll now see how strong the anti-COVID vax crowd's convictions are. They can uphold their end of the social contract, or they can become pariahs. You're entitled to refuse the vaccine; you're not entitled to employment.

Um, the weekly tests option is just fine. That's what should be done for everyone regardless of vaccination status anyway.

[DiamondGooner]

There it is:

Was wondering how long this was going to take once the FDA fully approved the Pfizer vaccine. We'll now see how strong the anti-COVID vax crowd's convictions are. They can uphold their end of the social contract, or they can become pariahs. You're entitled to refuse the vaccine; you're not entitled to employment.

So you approve of the Gov't being able to force any junk they conjure in a lab to put in you and MAKE you have it.

Its not a choice if its part of employement, because its not a "choice" to pay your bills and buy food in a capitalist country.

This is communism rules via capitalism by taking away someones right to take part in it.

How anyone thinks this is a good idea instead of mandatory testing says a lot about you as a person, and its not good.

Mandatory testing is acceptable but then the money £££ is in the vaccine so obviously ..............

[DiamondGooner]

You can't even get scientists to give a one line answer for global warming, some say its natually occuring where as some punt man made .......... which ones work for the Gov't?

You mean like the ones that worked for Humble Oil (now Exxon)? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/scie ... ments.html

Or the Stanford Research Institute? https://theconversation.com/us-firms-kn ... alia-57878

Or Exxon again 20 years after the original Humble Oil report? https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

Also, what scientists are you referring to? Environmental scientists and related fields? Or are you expanding the criteria to include non-relevant disciplines like quantum physics, psychology, archaeology, linguistics, audiology, and political science? Because among climate researchers, there was an overwhelming consensus (97-98%) that climate change is anthropogenic back in 2010 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010 ... 1003187107) which has since risen to 100% in 2019 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 7619886266). And I highly doubt 100% of climate scientists work for governments. If you have different statistics, then I'd love to see them.

This response is moot for a number of reasons.

One, I believe in global warming via pollution so who are you trying to convince?

Two, my point was there wasn't always consensus on this issue which is a fact, you even admitted yourself, 97% is not 100% and that's using your own stats.

[LMAO]

It's not clear cut and the current vaccines aren't the solution neither are boosters as the article states. We're learning on the fly and that's what I don't like. More variants on the way and there is talk of the vaccines not working for the Mu variant which puts us back at the drawing board.

The science also shows that if you have previously been infected with COVID, you are protected, even against the Delta variant compared to those vaccinated. The heavy handed way this is being dealt with is worrying. You shouldn't be treated like a second class citizen if you have natural immunity and test negative each week for a test when turning up for work.

The Mu variant has been declining in the US since the end of June. It's also been declining in South America since mid-July.

Agree with the point about those who have natural immunity. They should be able to opt-out with an antibody test or a previous positive test proving they've contracted the virus before.

[LMAO]

You can't even get scientists to give a one line answer for global warming, some say its natually occuring where as some punt man made .......... which ones work for the Gov't?

You mean like the ones that worked for Humble Oil (now Exxon)? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/scie ... ments.html

Or the Stanford Research Institute? https://theconversation.com/us-firms-kn ... alia-57878

Or Exxon again 20 years after the original Humble Oil report? https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

Also, what scientists are you referring to? Environmental scientists and related fields? Or are you expanding the criteria to include non-relevant disciplines like quantum physics, psychology, archaeology, linguistics, audiology, and political science? Because among climate researchers, there was an overwhelming consensus (97-98%) that climate change is anthropogenic back in 2010 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010 ... 1003187107) which has since risen to 100% in 2019 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 7619886266). And I highly doubt 100% of climate scientists work for governments. If you have different statistics, then I'd love to see them.

This response is moot for a number of reasons.

One, I believe in global warming via pollution so who are you trying to convince?

Two, my point was there wasn't always consensus on this issue which is a fact, you even admitted yourself, 97% is not 100% and that's using your own stats.

97% is a consensus though lol. 100% more so.

I was pointing out that it's basically a settled issue in the community currently when you were making out that anthropogenic climate change was 50/50.

[LMAO]

There it is:

Was wondering how long this was going to take once the FDA fully approved the Pfizer vaccine. We'll now see how strong the anti-COVID vax crowd's convictions are. They can uphold their end of the social contract, or they can become pariahs. You're entitled to refuse the vaccine; you're not entitled to employment.

So you approve of the Gov't being able to force any junk they conjure in a lab to put in you and MAKE you have it.

Its not a choice if its part of employement, because its not a "choice" to pay your bills and buy food in a capitalist country.

This is communism rules via capitalism by taking away someones right to take part in it.

How anyone thinks this is a good idea instead of mandatory testing says a lot about you as a person, and its not good.

Mandatory testing is acceptable but then the money £££ is in the vaccine so obviously ..............

Anything I don't like is communism, and the more I don't like it, the more communismer it is.

The government isn't forcing anyone. You can choose to get vaccinated and keep your job, or you can choose to not and re re re all the way to unemployment. It might be coercive, but it's still a choice at the end of the day. Besides, nothing is stopping the anti-vax crowd from starting their own companies, keeping the payroll under 100 people, and not contracting with the federal government if they feel so strongly about it

I think it's a good idea because I'd prefer the unvaccinated or those without natural immunity to not hog up ICUs for the more unfortunate (like people in vehicle accidents for example) and putting unnecessary strain on our medical system. I'd be perfectly okay with COVID vaccine mandates done away with if the anti-vax crowd agrees to be deprioritized/triaged for treatment if they contract the virus and need medical assistance for it.

[22-0]

Since you're calling them anti vaxxers you already have no idea what this is about.

99% of the people against this covid shit aint anti vax.

[Power n Glory]

There it is:

Was wondering how long this was going to take once the FDA fully approved the Pfizer vaccine. We'll now see how strong the anti-COVID vax crowd's convictions are. They can uphold their end of the social contract, or they can become pariahs. You're entitled to refuse the vaccine; you're not entitled to employment.

So you approve of the Gov't being able to force any junk they conjure in a lab to put in you and MAKE you have it.

Its not a choice if its part of employement, because its not a "choice" to pay your bills and buy food in a capitalist country.

This is communism rules via capitalism by taking away someones right to take part in it.

How anyone thinks this is a good idea instead of mandatory testing says a lot about you as a person, and its not good.

Mandatory testing is acceptable but then the money £££ is in the vaccine so obviously ..............

Anything I don't like is communism, and the more I don't like it, the more communismer it is.

The government isn't forcing anyone. You can choose to get vaccinated and keep your job, or you can choose to not and re re re all the way to unemployment. It might be coercive, but it's still a choice at the end of the day. Besides, nothing is stopping the anti-vax crowd from starting their own companies, keeping the payroll under 100 people, and not contracting with the federal government if they feel so strongly about it

I think it's a good idea because I'd prefer the unvaccinated or those without natural immunity to not hog up ICUs for the more unfortunate (like people in vehicle accidents for example) and putting unnecessary strain on our medical system. I'd be perfectly okay with COVID vaccine mandates done away with if the anti-vax crowd agrees to be deprioritized/triaged for treatment if they contract the virus and need medical assistance for it.

It sounds a lot like elements of China's social credit system.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained


The problem you have in America is that it will split the country even further. If you make social pariahs of those against the vaccine and force them out of the job, they're not just going to shrug shoulders and become entrepreneurs. That's wishful thinking. If they can't work or feed their families, it will push the crime rate up because most will have to get money illegally. Those with the money will be food. Unemployment boosts the crime rate.

Also, you create an even more dangerous situation that hasn't even had a chance to heal after the storming of Capitol Hill. Those already disillusioned with the Government will just be pushed further to the edge and you create more extreme groups with more sympathisers. This is dangerous territory and some more thought needs to go into what is being proposed.

[DiamondGooner]

You can't even get scientists to give a one line answer for global warming, some say its natually occuring where as some punt man made .......... which ones work for the Gov't?

You mean like the ones that worked for Humble Oil (now Exxon)? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/scie ... ments.html

Or the Stanford Research Institute? https://theconversation.com/us-firms-kn ... alia-57878

Or Exxon again 20 years after the original Humble Oil report? https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... years-ago/

Also, what scientists are you referring to? Environmental scientists and related fields? Or are you expanding the criteria to include non-relevant disciplines like quantum physics, psychology, archaeology, linguistics, audiology, and political science? Because among climate researchers, there was an overwhelming consensus (97-98%) that climate change is anthropogenic back in 2010 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010 ... 1003187107) which has since risen to 100% in 2019 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 7619886266). And I highly doubt 100% of climate scientists work for governments. If you have different statistics, then I'd love to see them.

This response is moot for a number of reasons.

One, I believe in global warming via pollution so who are you trying to convince?

Two, my point was there wasn't always consensus on this issue which is a fact, you even admitted yourself, 97% is not 100% and that's using your own stats.

97% is a consensus though lol. 100% more so.

I was pointing out that it's basically a settled issue in the community currently when you were making out that anthropogenic climate change was 50/50.

My man, quote me where I said it was 50/50 ............ you can't because I never uttered those words.

There wasn't concensus in the beginning, you know it and I know it, most is not all, if I'm going to get picked at for "choosing my words carefully" then others are going to have play by the same rules.

[DiamondGooner]

Anything I don't like is communism, and the more I don't like it, the more communismer it is.

The government isn't forcing anyone. You can choose to get vaccinated and keep your job, or you can choose to not and re re re all the way to unemployment. It might be coercive, but it's still a choice at the end of the day. Besides, nothing is stopping the anti-vax crowd from starting their own companies, keeping the payroll under 100 people, and not contracting with the federal government if they feel so strongly about it

I think it's a good idea because I'd prefer the unvaccinated or those without natural immunity to not hog up ICUs for the more unfortunate (like people in vehicle accidents for example) and putting unnecessary strain on our medical system. I'd be perfectly okay with COVID vaccine mandates done away with if the anti-vax crowd agrees to be deprioritized/triaged for treatment if they contract the virus and need medical assistance for it.

Two issues with your statement.

One, as I mentioned what you / Biden is proposing IS NOT a choice, what he's demanding even goes against your American constitutional rights of "Being free in the pursuit of happiness" its a direct attack on someone participating in a captialist system where you need money to survive so spare me the "its a choice" routine.

It is not a choice, to need food, bills, mortgages, medical insurance which all needs a job to pay for it.

So lets not play stupid and be calling it "a choice" just because it technically is, real world application wise, it isn't a choice at all, you are taking away peoples rights to choose by stripping them of their means to fkin live for gods sake, only a person with a communist mentality would view that as "........... a choice" and say it with a straight face.

Second issue is your claim of "Anti-vaxxers are clogging up the ICU's" when the vaccinated can catch Covid and be hospitalised just the same, all you can argue are the ratio's of hospital admittance maybe more on your side however ............ HotHeads stats for the UK showed a hospital admittance for Covid cases were 40% people who WERE vaccinated.

So that would put that argument out he window.

So where do you go from here with your horror show of forced Gov't coercion?

I'm starting to wonder if some of you Americans should really go and spend some time in Communist North Korea to really understand why the founders of Western Europe and America were so forceful in their political groundings of freedom ......... you guys have so much freedom you don't comprehend what the result is if you even give up an ounce of that freedom and the slippery slope that will incur.

[Luzh 22]

HotHeads stats for the UK showed a hospital admittance for Covid cases were 40% people who WERE vaccinated.

That's correct. 40% of hospital admissions were people who were vaccinated. What's not said in that statistic, is that the vast majority of adults are now vaccinated, meaning comparatively, it actually proves the vaccine is working, otherwise the numbers would tell a different story.

It also doesn't show that those hospitalised who were vaccinated, on the whole, suffered less severe complications from COVID. Another indicator the vaccine is working.

[DiamondGooner]

HotHeads stats for the UK showed a hospital admittance for Covid cases were 40% people who WERE vaccinated.

That's correct. 40% of hospital admissions were people who were vaccinated. What's not said in that statistic, is that the vast majority of adults are now vaccinated, meaning comparatively, it actually proves the vaccine is working, otherwise the numbers would tell a different story.

It also doesn't show that those hospitalised who were vaccinated, on the whole, suffered less severe complications from COVID. Another indicator the vaccine is working.

No one said the vaccine isn't working, also at this stage is it the vaccine or herd immunity since 2020?

I've seen people un-vaccinated who only had flu like symtoms and who continued to work remotely, others it barely affected and that was before the vaccines were even released.

So this blanket indication that people who've had the vaccine get lesser symptoms is not proven.

What is the age and health of those you say were un-vaccinated before they caught Covid?

[Jedi]

So this blanket indication that people who've had the vaccine get lesser symptoms is not proven.

Lab coat man gets lots of people. Lab coat man gives half people vaccine and other half placebo. Lab coat man wait few months. He check how many sick. Only 5 or 6 vaccinated sick, but in placebo group hundreds sick. A few in placebo group even die. Zero in vaccine group die.

Vaccine good, vaccine work. Vaccine make man less sick. Get vaccine.

[DiamondGooner]

So this blanket indication that people who've had the vaccine get lesser symptoms is not proven.

Lab coat man gets lots of people. Lab coat man gives half people vaccine and other half placebo. Lab coat man wait few months. He check how many sick. Only 5 or 6 vaccinated sick, but in placebo group hundreds sick. A few in placebo group even die. Zero in vaccine group die.

Vaccine good, vaccine work. Vaccine make man less sick. Get vaccine.

Proof need show.

All you state is empty words and opinion so far.

Where are your 2 year studies from multiple neutral agencies, not just the one hand picked who are obviously working for the Gov't?

Multiple tests over more than 12 months of data collecting plus proof of the health of the individuals studied before taking part.
You can't have 20 individuals obese, heavy smokers, prior health conditions and some over 80 yrs old vs 20 of those vaccinated who are young adults with excellent health.

So yes, please display the proof or hush, your misinformation isn't welcome here.