[gruez]

>Because while still contagious, they are not exponentially contagious. It's not like I left out that important qualifier in the statement you are replying to.

1. source?

2. It really wasn't obvious because you failed to link "vaccinated" with "not exponentially contagious".

>What does encryption have anything to do with vaccination and vaccination passports?

In the previous comment you basically made the argument that the measures are justified because they're not "interventions against social freedoms, rather an intervention to prevent a public service from being DDoSed". I just took that argument to its logical conclusion. Law enforcement resources are stretched pretty thin, right? Why not give them a helping hand as well by allowing them to eavesdrop on everyone's communications? After all, it's not an intervention to decrease public privacy, it's an intervention to prevent law enforcement resources from being DDoSed.

[skytreader]

1. For one, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... -- the jury still seems out as to by how much exactly the spread is prevented, it seems to depend on the vaccine and social demographics of the population studied. But at least for vaccines approved for use in the US and EU, the reduction seems significant.

2. I mean, this whole discussion is rather about the merits of vaccinations no?

> ... I just took that argument to its logical conclusion ...

This is just dishonest and misleading chain of reasoning:

- Law enforcement and public health are both public resources, yes, but of different nature and not comparable. I thought that's rather self-evident. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that law enforcement is indeed stretched thin, aiding law enforcement takes on an entirely different form than aiding the public health sector.

- Encryption is not analogous to vaccination passports at all. It's not even an apples to oranges comparison, more like, apples to cars.

Please, do learn how metaphors work.