I quite like the "conservatives pounce" stuff. Nice. I'm going to have to use that when I want to vilify conservatives. Here are some other ways we can propagandize to get the vax passports pushed through, from the leftist site global research: The Vaccine Passport Propaganda Template

1. Include some short expression that the idea of vaccine passports can be troubling
2. Frame the imposing of a vaccine passport mandate as something that is both inevitable and threatens only minimal, if any, harm
3. Bring on a guest who, despite his description making him sound like someone who would be looking out for the interests of people concerned about vaccine passports
4. Reiterate that vaccine passports are inevitable, and that people should support them
5. Declare that vaccine passports must be imposed on the American people because of coronavirus
6. Say that mandating vaccine passports is really no big deal.
7. Dismiss as insignificant people’s concerns about being required, in order to go about their daily activities, to present a vaccine passport and to take a vaccine, or, really, an experimental coronavirus vaccine that is not even a vaccine under the normal meaning of the term.
8. Dismiss any concern that vaccine passports can in fact harm freedom.
9. Insist that the vaccine passport mandate is fine because it will be applied equally to all people.
10. Declare that a vaccine passport mandate helps encourage people to take the shots.

laggy I have no issue with that at a high level.

That said, if it is shown later thru contact tracing that these places tend to end up as super spreader locations that the people who frequent then take back to their home areas and are infecting others, then I think gov't has a role to step in and stop it.

As they say, "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins" which is a concept that seems to be lost on some when it comes to this type of willful or negligent virus spread.

"[We have to?]... make it clear to them that the vaccine is the ticket back to pre-pandemic life...and the window to do that is really narrowing......so that's why I think CDC and the Biden administration needs to be a lot bolder and say "if you're vaccinated you can do all these things..here are all these freedoms that you can have, because otherwise people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway"

****ing fascists.

So...not a thing then I guess.

Lol exactly. Still not seeing a vaccine passport for Dunkin story yet

Facious. Some of you need to look it up.

That is probably a rosy-eyed view on past efforts to combat diseases on a large scale. They too have been fraught with disagreements, conflicts and conspiracy theories. Ultimately you just have to slug through it, and the best way to do that is with open information, being honest about what is going to happen and building trust.

This is the reasons that outside specialty cases / professions or travel to specific regions, you don't too often see mandatory vaccination programs or use of certificates. You want a large enough portion of the public to trust the process, using force can be detrimental to those efforts. Of course, as it becomes more and more critical, the equation can change. Short-term interventions of force might be necessary and justified. I don't think it is a good argument to say that "we intervened here with force, therefore we should intervene here with force". Every use of force should be discussed on its own merits.

Still, that is something that requires diligence. Making mistakes in such a process could eradicate the foundation of trust that the success of combating the disease is built upon. Needless to say the argument goes both ways. Arguments against such measures should also be based on open and qualified information, if they are to be taken seriously.

Personally I don't think "vaccine documentation" requirements is a good idea outside some special cases / professions. Like with most programs to fight disease, I think the efforts should go in the direction of achieving a society where we can trust diseases to be under decent control, and I don't think "checkpoints" is something that will achieve that.

I'm very conflicted on this. I basically agree with Cuppee and you so I have to conclude that I dont know.

I'm, always wary of arguments from the past. It's the ~no data problem coupled with the fact that things can change dramatically. Particularly when science has changed the game and we have the ability to develop and distribute very effective vaccines within months.

Vaccine docs might prove a huge success and become so standard people struggle to image that we ever didn't have them. It's not just covid, diseases like measles have made a come back and even flu was being tackled more. It may just nor be acceptable anymore to let so many people die when it can be prevented really quite easily.

And I think that will be the defining issue.

It is one thing, if people are taking on risk that is most local to themselves and they catch something and die needlessly when they could have had a shot and lived.

it is quite another when those people choices for their freedum infect them and cause spread that would not otherwise happen and it ends up killing others.

Invariably those people who choose 'freedum' always resort to the argument of 'if you don't like the risk you think I pose, stay home' and society at one point did have a problem countering that argument. We have since adopted a philosophy more akin to "Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins" and extending that out to peoples right to smoke and peoples right to carry infection into communities where unwitting people will catch it from them.

And i think that is the right approach albeit recognizing there are challenges in balancing it and over reach should be a concern.

The chief real objection isn't medical. It's a genuine concern about the government using it to pursue the undocumented/etc.

Hard to see how to make it work in a way i would support unless it's on a self-certification bases. That's going to require enough people to cooperate willingly or it will descend into farce.

LOL, this is so awesome. Maybe you should look it up, and then you can get back to us on what you actually meant.

I'm going to assume you were going for "facetious". The thing is, being facetious about a topic doesn't work that well when it's not something that's currently being discussed - it just causes confusion, and seems rather pointless. If you have something to say about vaccine passports, why don't you just go ahead and say it? Or is this just your way of throwing something out there to see how others respond before you take a position/put forward an argument yourself? Kind of like the flu post you just made, and the CRT thread.

Vaccine passports are all over the news. I've been talking about it for a long time now. Itshot's post made perfect sense.

I think he's not quite sure how far down the conspiracy theory well people allowed to go on this board. Expect to see lots of vaguely sinister, handwavy posts about vaccine passports.

You guys act like google news isn't a thing. Should try it.

Masks bro
They super effective against everything accept covid.
Can't win them all!!

I'm aware it's in the news, thanks. When I said "it's not something that's currently being discussed", I meant in the place where he's bringing it up - this thread. It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's that it's rather pointless/falls flat/causes confusion (I honestly wasn't 100% certain Dunkin hadn't taken some position on this and I Googled to be sure). As I said, if you have something to say about the topic, why not just say it? Kind of like this latest drop about the flu.

He's talking about Dunkin Donuts.

What's happening in this thread? I posted a CBS tweet showing Jen Psaki talking about vaccine passports and it's gone?
Deleting the Monteroy back and forth probably fine but not the tweet.

Here it is again. I assume this was deleted by mistake.
Eta: I see it got moved to poo flinger. But this isn't poo that Psaki is talking about, it's fascism.

Umm the private sector making rules for their own companies, employees and customer engagement is the exact opposite of fascism.

I have said from the start that it will almost certainly be private company rules (you cannot get on this plane, you cannot be seated in this restaurant, etc) that will drive vaccine adoption and not gov't pressure and that makes sense and is absolutely fair in any version of a 'free market'.

An individual has a right to bath in corona virus and walk around... fine and say 'no one has a right to know how risky I am or not', fine. But then no business has to 'gamble' with that individual and expose their staff and fellow customers to them, especially if other customers will not use their facility or service if they are not clear about the measures they are taking to protect them from risk.

Not according to Mussolini.

What do you mean, American businesses don't have a history of excluding people they don't like.

The Mussolini quote is a little abused-- but he called fascism and the marriage of the state and the corporation.
And given how merged corporations are with government, the difference between corporate abuse of power vs government abuse of power doesn't mean that much to me.
It does make perfect sense though that vaccine passports will be phased in by big business in some sort of carrot and stick approach-- because we're just frogs sitting in a pot waiting to be boiled alive, and phasing it in through corporate power is the best way to do that.

****ing perfect.