Don't need an ID to vote, but need a vaccine passport to go to Dunkin Donuts?

Ok I'll bite: what's wrong with that?

~18% of the population don't have smart phones, and HIPPA, and participating in the economy you have to submit medical information to for-profit businesses.

Expecting people to have IDs to vote is unreasonable and racist. Expecting people to get vaccinated if they want to participate in society is not. What are you? Some sort of fascist?

I mean, a person is presumably going to have to have an ID, otherwise, how does the company know it's your medical record? Again racist to require an ID to vote, but not racist in order to go to Dunkin' Donuts.

Last time I checked, there was no "right to donuts" in the constitution. Dunkin Donuts can do what they want as long as they don't violate the equal protection clause.

Old poor people get shut out...damn, Dunkin may rethink this


Old People. And poor people, with a skew towards minorities more than white supremacist.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/





Oh and rural folks are f*****, but they don't really want to go anywhere anyways.

Also tax them. Which has to be the correct approach because blue checked twitter is super serious people.

Ha!

Punish them!

Good grief.

No?

Is this actually a thing, or is this some Tucker Carlson hot take you thought the thread could use because it had been lacking in outrage over...important issues?

Silly republicans and their feedum.

That makes no sense in reply to my post, but I'm not sure what else you'd be replying to.

It does but I'll let it go.

To be clear, I only brought up Tucker because I've seen an example or two of him recently getting outraged over things that weren't happening, and also a fair bit of vaccine nonsense, so IHIV's Dunkin post read a lot like one of Tucker's hot takes. As far as I know, any talk of "vaccine passports" is at this point just that - talk. Which leaves me wondering why IHIV decided a thread that hasn't been of much interest to him for the last 6 months or so needed that bit of...news?

Idk. I just posted about it in media thread so there's that. There does seem to be an uptick in discussion/articles-- which seems natural.
But as far as vaccine passports go: Republicans hate them. And that should be good reason for anyone to support them.

I'm not sure how big a fan I am of the idea; it would really depend on the application. But I think the whole thing is pretty overblown and likely won't go that far. Way too many complexities and layers involved for it to be practical IMO, without even getting into the opposition they would face.

"Conservatives pounce"

"conservatives pounce" is meme. When a contentious story hits the wire, instead of covering the contentious issue, outlets will just do a " conservative pounce" story.


Here is a story covering the issue:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/covid-p...-build-rcna554

Here is a "pounce" story:

https://news.yahoo.com/republicans-g...192114471.html

I agree that criticism should be vested in reality.

If we go by the real world, mandatory documented vaccines is already a thing in some circumstances and places. Typical examples are for international travel when crossing borders (yellow fever), some types of health personnel (seasonal flu), international agreements to protect isolated indigenous populations (a whole lot of things), and probably a few others I can't think of on the top of my head.

But on a population or large-scale level inside a country? I don't know. The primary reason that few vaccination programs rest on being mandatory. The conventional wisdom is that the best way to reach high levels of vaccination is trust, and trust is best made by having solid health authorities, open information and ease of access. In a country like the US with it's rather haphazard access to healthcare, I suspect it would also quickly make the difference between the A-team and the B-team worse.
Issuing vaccine certificates seems like it rests in that uncomfortable spot between not being called mandatory, but it is actually mandatory.

It's also a bit of a causal mess. Like trying to combat school shootings with bulletproof plates built into backpacks. We're in great risk of pandemics because of the way we produce our food, how we cultivate our land, how we travel and how we have greatly reduced bio-diversity.

We all know what the Voter ID and other restrictions are about, so lets not play games with that under the pretext that 'if i can even under the flimsiest of reasons, I will'.

With regards to vaccine passports I think the gov't should stay out of it and allow business to set their own policy.

That a subset of the populace, who typically is pro business freedom to set their own policy now is pretending it would be so wrong for businesses to say 'we do not want our employees at risk so you can certainly choose to not take the vaccine but we then won't want you to work here or come use our service' is bizarre.

The 'freedom' position is to allow both sides to make their own decisions and to embrace and live with the consequences of their choices.

You can choose to be naked but you cannot come in to my business if you make that choice/

'FACISTS!! My choices must be accommodated by all!' is such a bizarre take.

No. Make whatever choice you want but just don't demand others accommodate you once you do.

The problem is that you have one faction invested in turning every issue around this pandemic into a culture war, which is not what we saw in the past where things like this would largely unite the country to a common cause.

So the 'anti' side logic literally goes like this (and you can see it play out in real time in the BFI thread):

- You should not be able to force me to wear a mask or distance. If you are worried about increased spread and risk and feel at threat stay home and protect yourself. Don't demand I protect you

- You should not be able to force me to take the vaccine. If you are worried about increased spread and risk or new waves due to variant proliferation and feel at threat stay home and protect yourself. Don't demand I protect you

- You should not be able to force me to show I was vaccinated with a passport. If you are worried about exposure to me, too bad. You don't deserve the knowledge that I might be a deadly threat to you. If you feel at threat stay home and protect yourself. Don't demand I protect you



This group in a worst case, could be responsible for no herd immunity being developed and the virus just proliferating and being something that takes it toll yearly at levels it otherwise would not, that we need to live with. And because they seem fine with bathing in virus and taking that risk they think all of society has to accommodate them or stay home and hide if they don't want that exposure.

Ironically they would also complain the loudest about future restrictions and lockdowns that they might be the main trigger of via their spread of variants.

BTW this argument has so many parallels to the smoking arguments of the 70's and 80's.

For those of you too young to know, those were times where it was near impossible to be anywhere in public and avoid smoke. Church, Airplanes, Hospitals, restaurants, etc. If you were out, you were being forced to breath other peoples smoke.

As gov't started to talk about restrictions some of earliest were what could be called smoking licenses. So just like not every restaurant gets a liquor license a smaller percent could apply for and get a smoking license. I saw talk of 10%.

But smokers fought tooth and nail against any attempt to regulate them and took a very militant stance of just replying with 'if you don't like my smoke leave. You can go home. You don't need to there'.

Yup the smaller percent of the population should be able to dictate to the larger to 'suck it up or leave'.

Very similar (albeit far more dangerous) with covid. A smaller percent wants to reserve the right to put everyone at risk of spread and more variants proliferating and if the majority does not like, lock yourself in your home.

It could be argued as a form of tyranny of the minority.