Fully expect the same. Basically, if you are less than 65 years old and not working in one of the early access professions, forget all concerns about vaccine safety. Buckle up to face the virus natively in that third wave that will sweep through unmitigated once the high mortality groups are vaccinated.
There may be places you won't be allowed to go and things you won't be allowed to do (like work, maybe) unless you show proof of having been vaccinated.
There's a good chance that situation will create a black market both for vaccines (real and fake) and forged proof of vaccination.
You are painting a scenario that could theoretically become an issue if vaccination somehow got stuck at some point close to or far beyond the 50% mark for some reason. E.g. to deliberately exclude some part of the population, or in some "the vaccine is actually a carrier for something else" movie plot. But if the limits of vaccination are just the confines of ramp-up and particularly if priority is given to the elderly, it's just a phantom fear. Not allowed to go to work unless you are older than 75? Right...
At first glance forgery seems like a very real threat considering how hard it is to tell vaccine from sodium chloride (entire testing procedures are based on this), but the same difficulty is also working against a black market: why pay if the seller can't give event the slightest indication that it's not a fake and the fake has no intrinsic value at all? You'd have to fake the distribution structures and not the product and an elaborate fake structure isn't something that suddenly pops up from some dark market investment, it could only evolve from simpler black market schemes. But those won't happen, at least not in time (except maybe in places with a truly corrupt regular distribution system, where it would start with "redistributed" real vaccine and then slowly shift over to fakes)
There may be places you won't be allowed to go and things you won't be allowed to do (like work, maybe) unless you show proof of having been vaccinated.
The UK government has ruled out having a vacination passport (for good reason in my opinion).
As I recall, the UK government very loudly and repeatedly refused to rule out a second national lockdown, despite calls to do so. Now, Boris Johnson said that he really didn't want to carry out a national lockdown and that it was a last resort, but that's not the same thing at all. Didn't stop the press calling it a u-turn anyway of course.
The Flip-flop / U turn complaint has always irked me. People don’t know the future, people change their minds. I would be disappointed if government were given new information and didn’t change their mind if it was now clear they should do so.
I am not saying that the government can't change their minds, new things pop up, future is hard. I am just saying that relying on "they promised us to not do that" is dumb. They will do anything once circumstances change.
This isn't a fair comparison, or reasoned in good faith.
The UK government changed their mind about a second lockdown given new evidence. The virus got much worse and they responded. What new evidence is there that the UK government is going to start vaccination passports? Has something changed?
That's the wrong question. The right one is "may something change in the future?" And an answer on this: "maybe, we don't know, nobody knows the future".
That being said, extrapolation of the exponential curve a month forward is one of relatively simple ways to predict the future. And yet, it was _completely_ unexpected for the UK government. Think about that.
that has already been ruled out in the UK and by many other nations and it is also not something that the WHO advocates so I dont see that getting leverage ever. Except in authorotarian regiemes where it would not be about the vaccine anyway.
