Over one year on & now knowing that @pfizer didn’t test their product on stopping transmission of #SARSCoV2, would you care to correct your ‘thoughts’ Adam, or shall we do the honours.
Did it ever occur to Mr. Wagner that the IHR received its biggest update in 2005, published in 2007, as well as Yellow Fever being a *completely different* virus as compared to #SARSCoV2, where it’s certification is only used in *specific countries* & has a CFR of 20-50%
They certainly are controversial because they’ve never been used as a global public health response in attempt to mitigate a respiratory virus with an incredibly low IFR.
‘Incentivising people’ by dangling their fundamental freedoms as a carrot on a stick via operant conditioning from the State is ‘clearly a public good’.
It’s still flabbergasting to read this from a Human Rights barrister.
Privacy is a fundamental Human Right & Article 8 of the ECHR, i.e the Right To A Private Life also covers ‘special category data’ used by COVID-status.
Our rights & liberties are viewed differently within the law. Our rights *must* be respected.
Coercing isn’t forced medical procedure, but Govt legislation placed millions of otherwise healthy citizens under significant duress where fully informed consent wasn’t given, in order to obtain a COVID Pass through vaccination.
On 22nd Jan, @RachaelMaskell asked @maggie_erewash if an assessment was made re: risk of vaccinated people being infectious at venues requiring the domestic #NHS COVID Pass.
Now that we know @pfizer didn't test re: transmission, we invite you to read Ms. Throup's response ⤵️
Assuming that @MHRAgovuk@DHSCgovuk had critical data, or lack thereof, on transmission since procurement, what Ms. Throup said about @pfizer jab reducing transmission by 50% is a LIE.
The Govt also admit their uncertainty surrounding jabs & transmission with #Omicron.
In summary, Ms. Throup claimed certification would 'reduce risk' in settings where the COVID Pass was required but then caveated explaining they wouldn't 'eliminate the possibility' of infectious people attending or transmitting.
🚨 The fifteenth & final report on non-devolved provisions of the Coronavirus Act (2020) has been published.
Since the last report, all temporary, non-devolved provisions in the Act have now expired or been
repealed. Apart from some 'permanent provisions' under the Act...contd.
Although the majority of provisions have expired, specific powers remain in force under the Act & new primary legislation is required in order to repeal them.
We imagine this will be completed after the winter season has ended, i.e. by 31st March 2023.
(i.) Section 11 relating to continued indemnity cover for 'NHS clinical negligence'. Make of that what you will.
(ii.) Section 63, yet again the Govt are retaining these powers to make further provisions, if necessary, within the Act.
But some 'permanent provisions' may not expire as expected... (contd.)
While three of the provisions & a part of the fourth (s.55b) were repealed, there's mention of provisions remaining 'necessary' to support 'pandemic recovery' & the Govt Living with COVID plan.
The 'permanent provision' of s.63 - 'power to make supplementary provisions' & it's permanent fixture by virtue of s.89 of the Act, raised our eyebrows 👀
'Retroactively' to our interpretation is the Govt saying that they don't want to let go of this particular power.
🆔 "With an ambition for the NHS App to be a one stop shop for health needs, the strategy commits to a target of 75% of the adult population to be registered to use the NHS App by March 2024."
A centralised digital wallet linked to facial biometrics.
The Govt bold target of 75% of the adult UK population registered on the #NHS app, then there must be something else coming to help them drive those figures.
Just like the COVID Pass drove people towards 'jabbing for freedom', out of fear they couldn't travel.
Lest we forget that @NHSDigital won't publish their contract with @iProov citing 'security' reasons.
iProov are also on record stating "it could not disclose how long it holds facial data for" other than no longer than necessary under the contract.
Spurious claims by this organisation considering there's no case number by the complainant nor other documentation available.
This is the problem over the last few weeks. We've been so littered in misinformation to the point that the public doesn't know what's true/false...
1⃣ It was 'unsurprising' to the claimant that their filing for JR & was refused & subsequently their appeal.
But of course it would be due to the glaring obvious that their claim was about an issue not directly involving the British Govt.
2⃣ It is untrue that 11/12 US proposed ammendments to the IHR (2005) are 'off the table'.
According to the current #WHA75 plenary, the text for US ammendments could well be discussed, but that doesn't mean adoption of those ammendments either.