I think this maybe a reason. Although this is the private sector decision, there CAN BE a strong government component. You, private sector, have no restrictions whatever if you only allow vaccinated customers/employees. You have fewer restrictions if you only allow vaccinated customers. You have X restrictions if you allow Y vaccinated customers. And the Gov does this with good intention - to control spread of a deadly disease. I'm expecting that the Court will allow it (given that the Court allowed Trump to violate federal law due to a health crisis: sending ALL, including kids back over the border). Not considering the ethical issues (there are some too), are we ready for the Gov to have this power? I think so, but I can see the danger there. But I also see many ways to manage the danger and ensure the Gov doesn't step over a line. That line can be clearly defined and judged upon. It could be a powerful gov tool to control future pandemic (think of a world where technologically advance vaccination can be had within weeks of a new deadly disease - not completely out of the question given mRNA vaccine for covid19 was created within a few days after the genome of the virus was published).
The most vaccine hesitant people in the US are black people and hispanics. What problem are you trying to solve?
this issue is not just interesting to "wack job conservatives." here from the Journal of Medical Ethics: "Immunity passports, fundamental rights and public health hazards: a reply to Brown et al ": https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/10/660 excerpt: . . . We argue that if a person has been tested positive for and recovered from COVID-19, becoming immune to it, she cannot be considered a hazard to public health and, therefore, the curtailment of her fundamental rights (eg, the right to freedom of movement) is not legitimate. Second, they omit that vaccine distribution will create similar problems related to immunity-based licenses. Vaccine certificates will de facto generate a sort of immunity passport. In the next phases of the pandemic, different immunity statuses will be at stake, because the need to identify who can spread COVID-19 is unavoidable. If a person does not pose a threat to public health because she cannot spread the infection, then her right to freedom of movement should be respected, regardless of how she acquired that immunity. *** . . . However, a further pressing problem may arise: those who do not want to be vaccinated will probably form a separate and perhaps discriminated-against population group. Another heated discussion will emerge about how to deal with this challenging issue. more at the link
I'm sorry do you think you created this thread and you are the only reason people are here? I am here because the OP had a valid question and I was learning some of the in and outs of the debate and then you just started spamming it like a spoiled child starved for attention. It's very telling that you think I am here for you and your adolescent behavior.
It’s not the actual records of vaccinations that are potentially problematic (as long as those are private), it’s the potential requirements for them being required for every day life activities. The precedent for this is school vaccination requirements for students, day care requirements, but that’s about where it stops.
So... the ability to buy a hammer at Home Depot is more concerning to you than your children's ability to enter school?
those two (child care and school) are “everyday” activities And if that’s where they stop, why do we think some additional requirements isn’t where those stop also? the slippery slope argument here fails because we do have real world evidence that it didn’t slip It won’t be EVERY day life activities. I think it is at best a short term solution to the ongoing pandemic and potentially a future tool for the next health emergency crisis.
I know that they are examples of it, that’s why I brought them up lol There needs to be a definition of an actual detailed vaccine passport proposal for us to even have the discussion that your trying to have, I’m not aware of what’s being proposed and don’t want to debate details they may not even exist.
NY has an actual implementation. App is available now. What to Know: NY Excelsior Pass for Covid-19 Vaccination, Tests (gizmodo.com) So, every business in New York State is going to require these? Not quite. When announcing Excelsior to the public, state officials made sure to stress that, as of right now, it’s only going to be trialed with specific venues that are set to reopen according to the state’s current guidelines. Right now, that means venues with at least a 10,000 person capacity. The usual guidelines will still be in place: temperature checks and mandated masks for all in attendance, alongside seating arrangements that enforce social distancing. So, mega-venues will be the first to adopt Excelsior—locations like Madison Square Garden in Manhattan and Albany’s Times Union Center, according to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s announcement. However, the pass will be expanding to smaller sorts of spaces—think concert venues or wedding halls—starting April 2. If smaller businesses like restaurants, hair salons, or coffee shops want to give Excelsior a go for their own peace of mind, they’re free to download the business-facing app. As of right now, downloading the Pass is completely voluntary for these businesses, and for the general public.
If you are also allowed the same access with negative tests then that's a different story. I mostly have a problem with dividing people's access to things based on vaccination, I'm not pro mandatory vaccine. That being said, during these trying times, I'm fine with requirements for negative tests to do wedding/big venues etc, and the beneficial part for those who are vaxed would be they don't have to go through the hassle of taking a test. This is much different then saying the only way to have a wedding is that your a required to get a shot.
It stops with the state mandated activity that everybody is legally compelled to do for 13 years of their life under threat of severe civil and criminal penslty. Seems like a good place to stop if you're looking for precedent!
You making compelling points. I'm with you on this brother, forget this dumb society crap We do have the right to homeschool, but yeah schooling is compulsory.
