Note the last line. Under the IHR (2005) these recommendations *do not exist* & *cannot* exist from EUA only & unlicensed, not fully tested jabs until the end of 2023.
These conditions of travel are *illegal*
π΄ Here's what current IHR (2005) regulations state. EUA only, unlicensed jabs & invasive medical examination must *never* be a pre-condition of basic freedoms that these Regulations have said they will UPHOLD.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
π¨ Compelling travellers is undergo invasive medical procedure as a pre-requisite to departure, arrival, & re-entry to their country of origin is *illegal* @travelweekly
π Chapter 3, Article 31, para.1 of the International Health Regulations (2005)
β "Invasive medical examination, vaccination, or other prophylaxis, shall not be required as a condition of entry of any traveller to the territory of a State Party"
β Article 32: Treatment of Travellers:
"State Parties shall treat travellers with respect for their dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms, and minimize any discomfort or distress associated with such measures"
Businesses are told *not* to make the QR code a pre-requisite of entry & another way to sign in *must be provided*, i.e. hardcopy, following GDPR regs.
Businesses have *no legal authority* to request your ID to check physical sign in details outside of the #NHS app
(contd.)
We believe that this #testandtrace system in place from 12th April could be switched to a #VaccinePassport scheme within months if the Govt are satisfied with levels of compliancy.
We are concerned re: Data Impact Risk Assessment of this updated system rolling out