Most Britons back vaccine passports to get into pub or restaurant

a reply to: St Udio

Is that US or Europe/UK? I've no idea for US law but in Europe and in the UK (for the time being until Brexit finishes) it's illegal for any potential employer to require vaccination or not provide equal access to employment based on a belief; neccesity is protected under a few hundred different constitons, bills and legal protections at all levels of the justice system.

Someone who is medically exempt would be placed in the same catagory as those who have had the vaccine legally and practically in Europe/UK with at least 30 different bills/laws/rights/acts that form UK Constitution documents guaranteeing equality.

Prople who declined the vacciner with no medical reason may be subject to opt-in schrmes where a gym/pub/festival can choose not to allow them entry/use of service but it can't be required by law or things essential to life like shops, healthcare use of local and national government facilities etc...but it can only be done with a few major legal changes and after every person has been offered it (at least a year away).

Travelling abroad or in/out of the Schengen zone would be the only time this could be introduced in Europe as the person would then be subject to the laws of the country they are travelling to and are no longer under the protections of various rights.

originally posted by: bastion
What's most disturbing is only 22% of people thought the legal and ethical ramifications (removal of most legal rights in the UK) outweighed the dreamt up economic boost a passport system is alleged to provide.

Old, rich people were happy to throw basic rights away while the younger and poorer people were the more inclined they were to be concerned about the ethical, moral and legal overhaul such a scheme would cause.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: dug88

The UK has 66 million people. 8300 is hardly a representative sample size.

Pretty much implies that you'll not only need a vaccine pass, but still have to muzzle up and maintain your distance.

Do you seriously think that Boris Johnson of all people - the guy that the western media keeps comparing to Donald Trump (The blond Adolf Hitler) - is going to tell his curtain twitching middle class tory voting base to wear masks and socially distance unless if was absolutely necessary.

Johnson want to tell you to wear a mask and socially distance just about as much as Biden wants to tell white women that they shouldn't walk alone after dark in seedy neghborhoods.

Tories and social distancing go together about as well as Democrats and AR15.

I dunno. backbench Tories have spoken out against lockdown but the Tories have been trying to scrap fundamental constitutional rights in the UK and have been privatising healthcare via stealth and selling patient information to US Pharma companies without patient consent for decades.

When the UN found the UK guilty, and first country in the world to be prosecuted, of crimes against humanity by denying disabled people the right to existence, causing several thousand to comit suicide or starve to death, the Tory front bench laughed and scrapped the Minister for Disabled People six years ago and have refused to replace them since.

Cameron and Boris both wanted to scrap the Human Rights Act once the Uk left the EU and replace it with some bull# British Bill of Rights which was all smoke and mirrors as UK judges wrote 75% of EU Human Rights law. The right wing press in the UK have printed propaganda suppoting the removal of basic rights and freedoms for decades in the UK claiming we had to leave the EU so the rights and freedoms could be fully removed.

We have Dr patient confidentiality in the UK and basic freedoms like employment, right to a private life, freedom of movement, anti-discrimination, freedom of belief, freedom of expression etc...would have to be scrapped inroduce such a scheme.

I've had the vaccine myself but I can't use anything smart or touch screen as I'm disabled and phones/tablets spazz out if I try holding them - a paper version would also exlcude me as traumatic brain injury means I have a goldfish memory for rembering where things are.

Such a scheme doesn't make any scientific or logical sense domestically (apart from certain hospital and frontline care staff) as someone vaccinated is immune to the serious effects of covid and not really at any real elevated risk if stood next to unvaccinated people (who have made the choice not to be vaccinated) so have to deal with any outfall and a pub or business shouldn't have to pick up the bill for a load of anti-vaxxers.

The only group who would benefit from a passport are those who can't have the vaccine due to serious allergy or serious health condition but they're unlikely to ever leave carehomes or hospitals and there's been no calls from such groups to introduce such a scheme.

I'm pretty sure that about 80% of what you've just said was made up or was political spin and comes from tabloids like the Mirror. For example, wanting to scrap the human rights act was actually one of the main reasons that people voted for Brexit, it was insanely popular and it wasn't because they hated human rights, it was because the EU courts were abusing the human rights act to stop the UK from deporting dangerous criminals back to Europe. It's being replaced with something that does more or less the same thing, but is based exclusively in the UK.

Scrapping the human rights act had a lot of support from liberals, as it meant that wife beaters and rapist could be deported far more easily, as well as neo-nazi, terrorists, and people convicted of hate crimes.

Right now, people in the UK are just plain fed up with being locked down. The UK lockdown is stricter than in many parts of the US, and people see the benefits of a passport as outweighing the costs.

There's also a view among some in the UK that the pandemic is being prolonged by selfish people who broke the lockdown by doing stupid thing like throwing dorm parties or opening up bars in their basement and inviting all of their friends.

It's also public knowledge in the UK that people from certain minority groups were less likely obey the lockdown, and thus were causing hot spots that were prolonging things for people who were staying home and obeying the laws.

There is a strong overlap between the above people and those refusing the vaccine. Which is causing a certain amount of resentment.

It's like you've got one bad neighbor who lets their dog run wild, which is why nobody in the street can get their mail delivered any more.

People are sick and tired and they think that a vaccine passport will penalize the anti-vaxers and let everybody else get on with things.

It pays to remember that people in the UK have had to have vaccine passports before, and still have to have them if they want to relocate to certain countries for any length of time. So this kind of thing is seen as more normal.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
That's actually incorrect, people who have had the vaccine harbor less of the virus, and cough less, so they are less likely to spread it.

www.bbc.co.uk...

OK, that's good, but I couldn't find any reference to virus numbers or concentration on that link or on the yet to be published paper, can you point me to it?

But, being less of a danger doesn't mean they are not a danger, and that's my problem with this whole CoViD-19 vaccination thing, as it's been promoted as being the only way of stopping the pandemic, when it's, at best, a way of slowing it.

In addition if you are an anti vaxxer I simply might want to boycott you for social or political reasons. Or I might not want you around my children in case you go off on some kind of rant. Or you tell them scare stories and upset them.

I'm not, I only think the vaccine is being promoted as something it isn't, giving people a false sense of security.

Personally, my main reason for not taking the vaccine, is the fact that, in Portugal, people cannot choose which vaccine they take and, if they refuse the one being presented, they are taken out of the list. Of the three vaccines being used in Portugal, only one was tested in people with asthma (one of my main health problems, along with diabetes), so they do not even know if there are any side effects. That, coupled with the shortened test period makes me doubt the safety of the vaccines for my particular case.

I'm going to treat you like I'd treat a vegan, each to their own, but not around my steak.

No need for insults.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

It pays to remember that people in the UK have had to have vaccine passports before,....

When?

So this kind of thing is seen as more normal.

Normal?
Since when has it been acceptable or 'normal' to have some sort of permit or passport to enable a grown adult enter licensed premises?

Anyone can go to a supermarket - where close contact is far more prevalent - without 'signing in' or having to display any sort of 'vaccine passport'.

Seems to me that pubs/clubs/restaurants etc are being targeted.

Two people can work together all day in close contact etc yet if one hasn't been vaccinated they won't be able to go have a pint or cup of coffee or a bite to eat together at the end of their shift if one of them hasn't been vaccinated or choses not to have some sort of permit or forgets it etc.
Barmy.

Right now, people in the UK are just plain fed up with being locked down.

They most definitely are.
But they are also really pissed off with the inconsistencies in government legislation and some of the restrictions that appear pointless, achieve nothing and are more politically motivated than based on scientific data and/or reality.

originally posted by: Freeborn
Two people can work together all day in close contact etc yet if one hasn't been vaccinated they won't be able to go have a pint or cup of coffee or a bite to eat together at the end of their shift if one of them hasn't been vaccinated or choses not to have some sort of permit or forgets it etc.
Barmy.

I think the difference is that when eating or drinking people cannot wear a mask, while they can (are forced to?) wear one at work.

a reply to: Bigburgh

So this just showed up in my e-mails

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
I'm pretty sure that about 80% of what you've just said was made up or was political spin and comes from tabloids like the Mirror. For example, wanting to scrap the human rights act was actually one of the main reasons that people voted for Brexit, it was insanely popular and it wasn't because they hated human rights, it was because the EU courts were abusing the human rights act to stop the UK from deporting dangerous criminals back to Europe. It's being replaced with something that does more or less the same thing, but is based exclusively in the UK.

Scrapping the human rights act had a lot of support from liberals, as it meant that wife beaters and rapist could be deported far more easily, as well as neo-nazi, terrorists, and people convicted of hate crimes.

Right now, people in the UK are just plain fed up with being locked down. The UK lockdown is stricter than in many parts of the US, and people see the benefits of a passport as outweighing the costs.

There's also a view among some in the UK that the pandemic is being prolonged by selfish people who broke the lockdown by doing stupid thing like throwing dorm parties or opening up bars in their basement and inviting all of their friends.

It's also public knowledge in the UK that people from certain minority groups were less likely obey the lockdown, and thus were causing hot spots that were prolonging things for people who were staying home and obeying the laws.

There is a strong overlap between the above people and those refusing the vaccine. Which is causing a certain amount of resentment.

It's like you've got one bad neighbor who lets their dog run wild, which is why nobody in the street can get their mail delivered any more.

People are sick and tired and they think that a vaccine passport will penalize the anti-vaxers and let everybody else get on with things.

It pays to remember that people in the UK have had to have vaccine passports before, and still have to have them if they want to relocate to certain countries for any length of time. So this kind of thing is seen as more normal.

No I used to write for UK newspapers (started off at The Telegraph so opposite of red top or left( and had to study UK and European politics from parish council to European Union and Commision for the NCTJ exams - it's the same level of Politics and Public Administration law third year Politics students take. Do you not remember Cameron calling for it to be scrapped, 90% of people requiring a wheelchair in the UK not being provided one within six months leaving them bedbound or the DWP WCAs causing several thousand deaths of severly disabled people found fit to work or having lied about the severely disabled persons premium payment (around £22,000 in backpayments owed for the most severely disabled to pay for carers that May's Government falsely claimed didn't exist for years in UK courts until having to admit it at ECHR.

All the claims are true and taken from UK Public Administration, EU and EC laws. Yours is formed on the spin pushed by UK Press and Government.

Here's the UK HRA Law - as you can see nothing preventing terrorists or criminals being deported:
www.legislation.gov.uk...

Here's the ECHR - Note it says criminals/terrorst are not covered and can be deported/extradited in Article 5 as others need for security outwreighs their claim to liberrty that was voided after comitting a crime.
www.echr.coe.int...

You proved my point that the press have brainwashed the public into supporting scrapping human rights in the UK by falsely claiming it was the reason criminals couldn't be deported, despite the fact UK judges wrote 75% of the European Convention of Human Rights as the UK system of rights is the most advanced in Europe. Besides UK cases can still be taken to/appealed at ECHR after Brexit so it does nothing to solve that despite what the Mail and Express have claimed for the last 20 years or the bollocks Farage came up with.

Judges have had veto power over any ECHR decision or EU imigration quiota since the Nu-Labour years due to the excess we paid into the EU, France and Germany are the only other two nations with this veto power - it was never used or mentioned by government though. The EU had no say in the UK Human Rights Act.

Can't say I've ever met or heard of a liberal who supported scrapping HRA; having basic rights and freedom is the very foundation of liberal democracy and designed to promote fairness and prevent facism in the UK - centre-right Labour members certainly supported scrapping it but none on the liberal side as it was seen how essential it is for society.

The Tories have publicly said they want to scrap the UK Human Rights Act using the nonsense terrorist/immigration claim since at least 2008 and replace it with a 'British Bill of Rights' despite never explaining anything other than the American sounding name to trick thick people who don't understand the Uncodified Constitution.

The HRA is exclusive tot the UK. If you believe any government is going to replace basics UK human right enshrined in HRA like free and fair elections,l, the right to life, right not to be tortured or falsely imprisoned, it being unlaswful for an authority or government to remove any right, the right to a fair trial,slavery being illegal, right to education and right to prevent the state convisgating your property or possesions without reason then I've got a very expensive bridge to sell you.
----
These are not things that should be thrown away because of an unfounded, unscientific and illogical view that introducing a passport would have any benefit to health or economy.

After vaccination it poses no more risk than the common cold - it's ridiculous to remove the right to life and the right not to be tortured and falsely imprisoned because you may get a slightly runny nose for a couple of days in the absolute worse case scenario.

When did we have vax passports over here? Vietnam is the only place I've had to get jabs before going in nearly 40 years of international travel - never had anything in Africa, America or the Middle East.

a reply to: bastion

In Portugal, most law specialists say that kind of "passport" is against the Constitution, as it goes against several of the rights expressed there.

a reply to: ArMaP

People can meet together in groups of six, have a picnic, have a few drinks together.
No requirement to wear a mask outdoors but you must if entering a shop etc.
No need for a 'vaccine passport'.

Sometimes doing the weekly shop for ourselves and my parents can seem like a cross between rugby scrum practice and trying to navigate around spaghetti junction with people cutting me up and side swiping and rear ending being a regular occurrence.
No need for a 'vaccine passport'.

Its common to see work colleagues put a mask on and go into somewhere like Greggs, buy a sausage roll and a coffee then come out and take their masks off. They then go and sit in their van and eat their food and drink their drink before going to wherever they are working and work closely and at times intimately with each other, not always necessarily wearing masks.
No need for a 'vaccine passport'.

But each and every one of them will need a 'vaccine passport' to go and have a pint with each other?

a reply to: bastion


Wow.... what a tangled future youse guys got in reacting to Covid19


you might be interested in this FYI article
allnewspipeline.com...

of interest is a factoid blurb relating to ADE Disease... where test animals given the vaccine all 100% finally got sick or died some 14 months after the Antibody (ADE) Dependent Enhancement was allowed to develop in their bodies after being dosed with syringe

read with caution it is a anti vaxx article

originally posted by: ArMaP

OK, that's good, but I couldn't find any reference to virus numbers or concentration on that link or on the yet to be published paper, can you point me to it?

When you say "numbers or concentration" what exactly are you asking for, numbers of what, concentrations of what?

People, cases of infection, deaths?

If you want the right answer you need to ask the right question.

You also need to be aware that Covid can be transmitted by touch as well, which isn't something that a vaccination can deal with. If you have Covid on your hands you can still transmit it to somebody as the vaccine won't sanitize surfaces.

OK, that's good, but I couldn't find any reference to virus numbers or concentration on that link or on the yet to be published paper, can you point me to it?

Hence why we're being told to wear a mask, to wash our hands, and to socially distance as well.

If you do all of these things they each reduce the transmission rate, and if you're vaccinated as well you reduce it further.

It's not a silver bullet, and the media has been very clear about that. There are endless clips on British news channels of Borris Johnson saying exactly this.

Of the three vaccines being used in Portugal, only one was tested in people with asthma (one of my main health problems, along with diabetes), so they do not even know if there are any side effects.

Doesn't it stand to reason that that one vaccine will be the one that you're offered?

When you get right down to it, most of these vaccines are made using technology that is decades old. They usually have the same side effects as the previous vaccines made with that technology, which is well known and well understood, and the shortened trial periods with the Covid vaccine aren't actually "shortened" in any real sense.

Normal vaccines take so long to research because they are low priority. Or to put it much more simply, the Covid vaccines are being researched in a normal amount of time, everything else takes too long because there are too few people doing the research and little money to be made.

Look at the vaccine for Zikka, it took years to come up with anything, until it started effecting people in places like California, so they pumped more money into it and got the led out.

a reply to: bastion

90% of people requiring a wheelchair in the UK not being provided one within six months

A) Wasn't that only specially adapted ones such as ones for children with additional needs and B) Wasn't this a problem with the companies supplying them, not with anything that the government was doing.

All the claims are true and taken from UK Public Administration, EU and EC laws. Yours is formed on the spin pushed by UK Press and Government.

Link, please.

You proved my point that the press have brainwashed the public into supporting scrapping human rights

That makes absolutely no sense. The UK is infamous for its media being dominated by liberals and the left. It was overwhelmingly pro-remain. Especially the BBC which is the largest news broadcaster in the world, let alone in Britain.

Why would the liberal media be calling for legislation to be scrapped when they're the ones calling for more legislation.

Can't say I've ever met or heard of a liberal who supported scrapping HRA; having basic rights and freedom is the very foundation of liberal democracy and designed to promote fairness and prevent facism in the UK - centre-right Labour members certainly supported scrapping it but none on the liberal side as it was seen how essential it is for society.

Read any liberal newspaper right after a sex offender was allowed to stay in Britain under the human rights act.

Liberals want more rights for the victims, less for the perpetrators. In fact, conservatives want this too.

The Tories have publicly said they want to scrap the UK Human Rights Act using the nonsense terrorist/immigration claim since at least 2008 and replace it with a 'British Bill of Rights' despite never explaining anything other than the American sounding name to trick thick people who don't understand the Uncodified Constitution.

This was explained during Brexit. Mostly it was merely a transfer of the final verdict to the UK supreme court from the EU one, and the scrapping of exceptions for things like "right to a family life" for people convicted of serious crimes when it comes to deportion.

I suggest that you look at the entries for Priti Patel in Hansard when it comes to the human rights act and to deportation. She explains most of the issues that you've raised.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: bastion

In Portugal, most law specialists say that kind of "passport" is against the Constitution, as it goes against several of the rights expressed there.

I'm not familiar with the Portuguese constitution, much less an expert on it. It would be helpful if you provided some links andor examples as I can't confirm or dispute what you are saying without knowing what your argument is.

For a lot of the rest of us, our laws prevent discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race or gender identity, but not vaccination status.

The resistance is forming and political enemies are becoming unlikely allies against the COVID passport idea.

But a broad coalition of MPs and peers have now signed a pledge saying they "oppose the divisive and discriminatory use of Covid status certification to deny individuals access to general services, businesses or jobs".

The group contains some unlikely allies, with many of Mr Corbyn's former shadow cabinet joining the lockdown-sceptic Covid Research Group of Conservative MPs in backing the campaign.

Accusing the government of "creeping authoritarianism", Liberal Democrats leader Sir Ed Davey said: "As we start to get this virus properly under control we should start getting our freedoms back. Vaccine passports - essentially Covid ID cards - take us in the other direction."

Sir Graham Brady, who chairs the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, added: "With high levels of vaccination protecting the vulnerable and making transmission less likely, we should aim to return to normal life, not to put permanent restrictions in place."

Privacy campaigning organisation Big Brother Watch also signed the pledge and published a report arguing against the measure.

The group's director, Silkie Carlo, said: "We are in real danger of becoming a check-point society where anyone from bouncers to bosses could demand to see our papers. We cannot let this government create a two-tier nation of division, discrimination and injustice."

In the campaign group's report - entitled "Access Denied" - it said if certificates were brought it, in would be "the first policy for decades that could see segregation imposed throughout the population".
www.bbc.co.uk...

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
― George Orwell, 1984

a reply to: gortex

“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Speaking as somebody who lived under a communist dictatorship, I can vouch for the fact that the above is true. I'd rather be happy than free. If I'm warm, well fed, and I my basic needs are catered for, I would definitely sign away a whole bunch of my freedoms (In fact, I did and I don't regret it).

This might sound completely insane to some of you. In fact, probably to most of you, the truth is that when you're cold and hungry, and dirt poor, you can't really use most of these freedoms anyway because you're too busy trying to stay alive.

It's the same with Covid. I'd rather be vaccinated and carry vaccine passport, and wear a mask, and socially distance, and be allowed to go to the gym, than not be allowed to go to the gym.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I've been dirt poor , cold and hungry and at no point then or now have I been ready to forgo my freedoms or liberty in fact I was dirt poor and hungry because I was exercising my freedoms to follow my dream.

I'm fine with wearing a mask and social distancing as I see it as an essential tool in the fight against COVID but I'm not fine with being pressured into taking a vaccine that hasn't been subject to long term clinical trial and doesn't offer immunity from the virus.

Freedoms are hard won but easily lost.

a reply to: Freeborn

In a closed area where everybody is eating or drinking nobody has a mask on, so there's a difference to an open area with small groups of people eating/drinking together.

That's the only reason I see.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

To be clear my post wasn't meant as support for the EU or remoaner - it was just the rights in Europe (Western/Advanced Liberal Democracy Countries are all based on UK Constitution/Rights which stem from Judeo-Christian value. I can see why it would appear as pro-EU/Remoaner nonsense to anyone reading it critically; especially given the appaling undemocratic actions of hard-left Remainer MPs.

No links as they're all Uni textbooks and legal guides from Oxford Uni and Palgrave McMillian like How Parliament Works by Robert Rogers and British Politics by Robert Leach - see every rights document in the UK for the last 800 years.- HRA 1998, Equalities Act 2010, DDA, NHS Constitution, SENDA, more recently the Dr patient confifentiality case of Woman A (tragic case, womans father had Huntingtons but asked his Dr for it to be confidential, he shot his wife as a result of the condition and Woman A would not have had her child if aware of the hereditary illness -court sided even in that extreme case Dr-Patient confidentiality is sacred).

Not sure where you get the idea UK press is liberal as it's unfounded - The Guardian is the only left of centre paper and no one reads that as it's #e. The UK Press is right wing from local to natinoal level. Local proprietors are Johnson Group which is Tory, Murdoch Press owns most nationals/internationals and is right wing, with Daily Mail and Express being on the far-right side of things. That's the official stance of the proprietors, editors and years of analysis of the press and politics in the UK.

Where have the UK press called for more human rights? The Sun, Torygrapgh, Mail, Express, ITN, News International and Johnson Press ran anti-EU and Anti- Human Rights campaigns for decades by creating a false public narrative that people couldn't be deported or terrorists got light charges because of 'ooman rights' as reporting the court cases accurately takes too much time, expense, page space.

The propreitors or the Mail, Telegraph News Int did pull a last minute vote remain push as the owners of those papers were making millions per year exploiting EU land subsidies. Paul Dacre, editor of the Mail got roughly £100,000 to £250,000 a year in EU subsides while the propreitor Viscount Lord Rothmere got around £3.5m a year from them - in the closing days when it appeared Leave may win they did a 180 and leant more towards Remain to try and keep the money for nothing coming in.

If you trust anything Priti Patel claims in regards to Human Rights then I don't know what to say - look into her history at Webber Shandwick and British American Tobacco and how she was a lobbyist for the most brutal regimes in the world like Bahrain, UAE and Burma.

She lobbied on their behalf to keep child labuor and slavery alive and had secret, illegal meetings with US and Israel to set UK anti-terror policy without the oversight of Parliament or Public. Her recent 'holiday' in Israel was meeting with the heads of Israeli Nucleaer Weapons program despite it being illegal under international law (non-proliferation treaties).

She's spoken publicly about how she wants the public rights to question government removed from the Courts in the UK. She wants to bring back the death penalty in the UK, wants same-asex marriage banned.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
When you say "numbers or concentration" what exactly are you asking for, numbers of what, concentrations of what?

I said "virus numbers or concentration", and it was directed at your "people who have had the vaccine harbor less of the virus" sentence. If they "harbour less of the virus", how much less? If the vaccine reduces the number of viruses per millilitre of blood, how much does it reduces it? Does, on average, an infected person that took the vaccine has 50% of the virus in their blood when compared with an infected person that didn't took the vaccine?

I hope you understand my question now.

You also need to be aware that Covid can be transmitted by touch as well, which isn't something that a vaccination can deal with. If you have Covid on your hands you can still transmit it to somebody as the vaccine won't sanitize surfaces.

True.

It's not a silver bullet, and the media has been very clear about that. There are endless clips on British news channels of Borris Johnson saying exactly this.

I'm Portuguese, I don't follow British media.

Doesn't it stand to reason that that one vaccine will be the one that you're offered?

No, they are random. It looks like the Astra-Zeneca vaccine (now called Vaxzevria) tests used people with asthma, but that one wasn't an option when I was contacted to take the vaccine.
Besides that, I was contacted for the wrong phase, as I was supposed to be on the third phase, not on the second.
The Moderna vaccine documentation says that they had more cases of anaphylaxis in people with diseases like asthma.
Comirnaty, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, doesn't show people with asthma as being part of the tests.

When you get right down to it, most of these vaccines are made using technology that is decades old. They usually have the same side effects as the previous vaccines made with that technology, which is well known and well understood, and the shortened trial periods with the Covid vaccine aren't actually "shortened" in any real sense.

No, of the 4 vaccines now approved in use in Portugal, two are RNA vaccines and the other two are non-replicating viral vector vaccines the "traditional" ones.
In the Moderna vaccine test, for example, they had 1.4% of cases with anaphylaxis, while the average for other vaccines is between 0.1% and 0.6%.
The direct result of the shortened trial periods is that the amount of data is smaller than usual. For example, if you look at the FAQs you can see that, when talking about possible side-effects on pregnant women, they say that tests in animals didn't show any bad side-effects, but they do not have data for humans.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
I'm not familiar with the Portuguese constitution, much less an expert on it. It would be helpful if you provided some links andor examples as I can't confirm or dispute what you are saying without knowing what your argument is.

In this particular case, point 1 of article 26 of the Portuguese Constitution states:

1. Everyone is accorded the rights to personal identity, to the development of personality, to civil
capacity, to citizenship, to a good name and reputation, to their image, to speak out, to protect the privacy
of their personal and family life, and to legal protection against any form of discrimination

Knowing if a person was vaccinated or not is an intrusion in their personal life. Besides that, discriminating people because of their health status (vaccinated or not) is included in the "any form of discrimination".

If you're interested in it, you can read an English version of the Portuguese Constitution here.

For a lot of the rest of us, our laws prevent discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race or gender identity, but not vaccination status.

In Portugal, everything related to a person's health is private, and nobody can be discriminated because of a health situation. For example, at work, the doctor responsible for the workplace health of that company may prescribe and perform tests to see if a worker uses drugs, but the information is protected by the doctor-patient relation and nobody else has the right to know about it, as drug addiction is considered (naturally) a health problem.
The only exception is related to public health, as the doctor may have the obligation of informing the local health authorities if a patient has some disease that is considered a public health issue, but nobody else needs to know about it.