Yes or no?
Details?
Legislation?
Implementation?
Duration?
American libertarians are concerned that vaccine passports might put the US on the road to a new Holocaust, so it's important to hash this out now, before it's go-time.
Printable View
Yes or no?
Details?
Legislation?
Implementation?
Duration?
American libertarians are concerned that vaccine passports might put the US on the road to a new Holocaust, so it's important to hash this out now, before it's go-time.
Yes for air, cruise or international travel for a while, if the company or destination nation wants it.
Maybe for private businesses like clubs, theatres etc if the business wants it.
No for compulsory or government mandated checks domestically.
Domestically only really fair once everyone has had an opportunity to get a vaccine. By which point they may be unnecessary anyway.
Yeh.
Clear no for anything other than international travel.
So even if a business wants to do this of their own free choice, say a domestic cruise ship for instance, you want the government to outlaw businesses making their own free choices on who to serve?
If anyone is curious what it's like to live in a state run by someone who is somehow dumber than lewk, our governor just banned vaccine passports, by both local agencies and private businesses.
Cause fuck the cruise lines, fuck safety, and fuck keeping the government out of the way.
Pretty much this, and would prefer if there's a non vaccination alternative (very recent negative test), aaand preferably so the difference can't be seen by others. Mainly for those with genuine medical reasons why they can't be vaccinated, but that'd also help against challenges based on freedom of religion and medical privacy.
That's a silly question. If you are inclined to believe that God is providing, then it's not such a strange thing to believe that protecting yourself against the percieved will of God is sinful. They don't just see vaccines in this light but any type of attempt of avoiding the effects of what God puts on your way. Insurance of any kind is a big no no too.
You may not believe that, I may not believe that. But it's unethic to demand they apply your logic to their live decisions. Then you should be honest and say you don't want them to be able to base their decisions on what they believe.
Mixed feelings to be honest. For tried and fully tested vaccines that not taking can result in serious harm to a child... it is borderline child abuse not to give it. However I dislike the state making the determination and doubly so with vaccines that exist with liability immunity for big pharma companies making them. I'd accept a compromise of the requirement existing for public schools if a fully funded voucher system existed to allow parents to opt out and use those educational dollars elsewhere.
I can't wait to see the same people who were fine getting half a dozen other vaccines suddenly realize that their religion doesn't allow them to take this one.
The requirement here is for a "sincerely held" religious belief. I somehow doubt the sincerity of most Covidiots.
Pretty much the only people who can claim opposition to vaccines in general on religious grounds are a handful of members of tiny fringe sects. Some groups oppose specific vaccines on religious grounds, notably vaccination against HPV. But every major denomination of every major religion endorses vaccination in general.
Some prominent Catholics over here have raised objections due to the fact that a cell line originating from an aborted embryo has been used in some point of research and development of certain Covid vaccines. I don't think such concerns have been raised previously related to other vaccines, although I have no idea if such "objectionable" cell lines are employed in development of any of the more commonplace vaccines. Maybe this view is not particularly widespread - I know I've heard of similar concerns from other Catholic priests in other countries a couple of times - but still, it's not limited to fringe sects.
I don't know about the states, but over here the strict protestants don't take vaccines at all. No idea whether that is in any book or based on any part of the bible, but they do. And consistently enough that it'd count as a consistent belief.
And while I don't know about these particular vaccines, in general there are people who can't have them because of medical reasons (with compromised immune system). I think those groups have good arguments against mandating vaccines, and if you exclude them from half of society you could see that as a mandate. Since the goal is to prevent transmission of the virus, giving an alternative that achieves the same sounds like a good idea to me.
That's why I specified "opposition to vaccines in general", rather than to specific vaccines :up:
This article offers a quick overview of the use of fetus-derived cell-lines in the development/production of current vaccines:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020...se-fetal-cells
Important to note that religious leaders—including Catholic leadership—have determined that even vaccines developed or produced using fetus-derived cell-lines are permissible, when other alternative vaccines are not available. Opposition to specific vaccines on those grounds is more or less a fringe position even among catholics.
Dutch reformed church is divided in general :p
Can somebody make a compelling case for the reason for vaccine passports, other than for international travel, if everyone who wants to be vaccinated has been vaccinated?
I can't see it.
Johnson was fairly clear in this last conference that they are coming, domestically, but I don't think anyone in the cabinet has yet made a decent case for them.
The only country significantly more vaccinated than the UK, Israel, has removed pretty much all restrictions on domestic life but replaced them with vaccine passports. It has worked there extremely well. If you wish to go to a nightclub or a bar etc you use your "green pass" and that's that.
The system has worked there. They're basically back to normal, no major restrictions, and R is still cratering and the virus is being eliminated without any forms of lockdown.
So they work. The question is whether that's both justified from a civil liberties perspective, and whether it's necessary or overkill. I think the risk is not from domestic transmission but reimporting the virus with overseas travel. So my personal solution would be to only have vaccine passports with overseas travel, combined with any country with rates of virus higher than ours (pretty much everywhere except Israel, Aus, NZ and parts of East Asia) should be on a mandatory hotel quarantine red list.
With my preferred solution then we'd never have domestic passports compulsory, and we could then remove countries from the red list as they join us in removing the virus from general circulation.
Putting the civil liberties question aside, why are they medically justified if everyone who wants to be vaccinated has been vaccinated?
There was a similar discussion about being allowed to not accept unvaccinated kids to kindergarten a while ago. The reasoning then was to protect kids with medical issues who couldn't get vaccinated and who were endangered by outbreaks from anti vaxxers.
I suppose an extra argument is as long as hospitals are under pressure/not fully caught up with backlogs yet, you don't want unvaccinated people causing outbreaks and taking up hospital resources. That obviously depends on the number of unvaccinated people and the situation in hospitals and shouldn't be long term.
Because vaccines aren't 100% effective, they work with a herd immunity basis. If you're jabbed you're not likely to get infected and aren't likely to infect others. If everyone around you has been jabbed, they're all not likely to be infected and not likely to infect you.
If there's a community of people who aren't jabbed, they're much more likely to be infected, much more likely to be infectious and thus can pass it on to those who either have been jabbed (but aren't fully protected) or can't be jabbed for medical reasons (eg pregnant women currently aren't). Hence why idiots refusing the MMR leads to Measles outbreaks.
The scheme proposed has alternatives for the unjabbed such as negative tests, meaning eg unvaccinated pregnant women and the vaccinated could mingle freely, no social distancing, no likely plague carriers in their midst.
Medically it works. Civil liberties is the issue. The other issue though is the border, if people are going from the UK to Magaluf they're far more likely to be carriers than just people mingling in the UK.
Another factor with herd immunity is that it works when there isn't an outbreak to stop one spawning, it doesn't necessarily stop an ongoing outbreak. Thus if people are travelling from here (where cases are low, herd immunity could be real) to Paris (where its out of control) then herd immunity becomes more void. Why we'd trample liberties rather than contain it by quarantining those where there's outbreaks is beyond me.
If we don't give the government the power to keep people from negligently killing those around them, why do we even have a government?
Agree with all of this.
But if these are the reasons then we should have had vaccine passports to enter shops, schools, football grounds, hair dressers and other's homes decades ago, surely?
Are they now essential because this virus is more deadly and easy to spread than other viruses? What's the criteria for needing a passport and not?
Also, for those that support domestic passports, should they be nationalised or privatised?
Do we pay for them via tax and let big government do it, or do we establish and grow (thus new jobs and revenue) a new industry? Perhaps linked with insurance in some way? Who would you want handling this particular data of yours?
From a public health perspective, disregarding civil liberties and other ethical problems, there are a couple of important benefits: implementing a vaccine "passport" system helps ensure that only people who are at extremely low risk of contracting and transmitting covid engage in those activities that are associated with a higher risk of transmission—effectively neutralizing (to a great extent) the super-spreader event problem—and also strongly encourages people to get vaccinated if they can. Using vaccine passports might help reduce the risk of a post-lockdown surge, by maintaining a sort of soft lockdown for people who are at risk of getting infected and infecting others. An ancillary benefit that has nothing to do with public health but a lot to do with the interests of certain types of governments is that it's another way to make life extremely difficult for undocumented migrants. For the individual (vaccinated) passport holder, the system might entail greater freedom sooner, along with lower risk of harm to themselves and still-vulnerable people around them. For individuals who have medical exemptions, a system like that might also lower their overall risk, without unnecessarily restricting their freedom due to something they can't control (eg. a medical condition).
There were no vaccines before, so it's really a moot point.
We already require vaccines to enroll in schools. I don't see a reason for the government to require private businesses to require vaccine passports. Enforcement would be impossible. Much easier to require them in any area already controlled or strongly regulated by the government.
Everyone who doesn't have a medical or religious (narrowly applied) exemption should be required to have it if they want to make use of any public service.
The expected death rate for all humans eventually is 100%. In the long run we're all dead.
Killing someone on purpose is not the same as disease spreading which happens.
We don't require vaccines to enroll in schools. Its personal choice whether people are vaccinated or not.
Getting vaccinated is the right thing to do, but its personal choice.
I also don't think that the international passport is quite the same as the nationally used passport. The government of your place of residence may have surprisingly little say over whether or not you will need one for international travel.