British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has faced his worst rebellion with more than 100 members of his party rejecting the introduction of Covid-19 passports. The measures only passed after the opposition parties banded together and approved the government's measures.

One right-wing magazine made a list of all the members of parliament who voted for the vaccine's passport, calling it a "roll of shame."

Only in September, the government denied that it would be introducing vaccine passports amidst widespread opposition from within the party and voters.

An official petition of those against a vaccine passport on the parliamentary website gathered almost 400,000 signatures and even demonstrations.

The government's response to the petition earlier this year said, "we can't discriminate against people who, for whatever reason, haven't had a vaccine."

That u-turn has been decried as a betrayal by some on the right who argue that the state has no business in controlling what people can and can't do.

So what do the measures mean?

Following the measures being passed in the UK parliament, people in England will now need to show their Covid status to get into nightclubs, music venues, shopping centres and many other venues that are open to large numbers of people.

Controversial for some is that the government has changed the definition of what it means to be fully vaccinated. As a result, people that have received the two vaccine shots will no longer be considered "fully vaccinated" unless they have the third booster shot.

Scientists have said that over time, immunity to Covid-19 decreases, and with the emergence of the new Omicron variant - it's important to get an additional shot.

Some critics, including anti-vaxxers, feel that the constant shifting of goalposts means that the government can't be trusted and that vaccine passports are a means for the state to extend its reach into people's lives.

When members of parliament earlier this year asked the government to provide scientific evidence on whether covid passports work, it received no response leading to a scathing report.

"With recent analysis suggesting that vaccinated people carry as much of the virus as the unvaccinated into any setting, the disappointing lack of any scientific basis for the Government's decision to go ahead could reasonably lead people to conclude that there is, in fact, no such basis," concluded one member of parliament in a report on the government's plans on covid passports.

It then added that "If the real goal is to drive vaccine uptake, then it is a deeply cynical approach that will be counterproductive."

It added that any policy on vaccines passports that was not based on science would be "discriminatory and, potentially, ineffective policy will have consequences for trust in and acceptance of the Government's measures to tackle the pandemic."

The UK government is also extending its vaccine passport coverage to 12 and 15-year-olds which has also met resistance amongst skeptics.

One British politician voting against the current restrictions called predictions on mass deaths "pessimistic and wrong."

As part of the measures, it will now become compulsory for medical staff in hospitals to be vaccinated.

One of the largest health unions in England opposed the decision calling it a "strong-arm tactic," adding that it was "opposed to legally enforced medical procedures as a condition of employment – it's heavy-handed."

An opposition member of parliament who also voted against the decision remarked that legally forcing workers to get vaccinated or face being fired was an unprecedented move in the country.

"For the first time ever, we have seen the profession of care workers singled out and have conditions attached to their employment status which was never there to begin with," said the politician urging the government to persuade workers rather than using such measures.