[hirako2000]

Whataboutism? We better question criteria for border crossing rather than endorsing further extension of those criteria.

The cost of travel is not coincidently high for those who have less. We will add further burden on people who barely met the financial conditions to just visit a place. And the inconvenience to the already stress inducing security procedure we face each time we take a flight.

We have been tolerating radical measures. Just try hold a bottle of water through airport security. And now we are seeing another type of radical measure: show us that you are up to date with whatever health prevention injection and tests that happen to apply today within a jurisdiction. Another straw, some camel backs are breaking , some find it manageable.

[trainsplanes]

Requiring immunization is a cost-saving measure for countries accepting travelers. The last thing a poor country needs is richer people coming in, getting sick, and ending up hospitalized all while infecting other people.

And the system has hundreds of years, if not millennia, of history. Before immunization was available, quarantines were mandatory even for people without visible illnesses around the world. It's only in 2020 that the idea of this become controversial and some people acted like it was unprecedented through exposure to echo chambers.

[hirako2000]

Any source you could reference about the general practice of mandatory quarantines prior to immunization?

It was unprecedented in our life time. That's all people expressed. Not acted like. At most that's what they believed. Please educate us on how the world worked. Provide some sources, and not only a reference of occurrences of quarantines used throughout history, of course the practice existed, but I read your claim is that it was general practice.

Quarantine is a measure that always existed under serious circumstances, where people would most likely spread a disease causing certain death to healthy, whether young or old people. Today these quarantines are absurd measures causing far more harm that supposedly contain the spread of a virus. Which is spreading anyhow.

Following your logic, going to some extreme would lead to any pathogen discovery on anyone could grant a total shutdown of the worldwide traffic, stop all commercial activity, have every single person assigned to residence. The logic is dangerous beyond belief. You mention echo chambers, it applies to all sort of ideas, not only those you disagree with are echo chambered. there is something even more worrying, it is how institutions influenced by profit makers use propaganda to shape the way we think, and to see that you and many others don't have the respect of other people's appreciation. Do as you please, take all the necessary measure you feel would keep your safe. But Respect other people's freedom.

The question is who pays. You want quarantine, that's fine. Pay for it. Pay for the cost of quarantine facilities and staffing where they exist. And pay for the burden imposed on those mandated to be quaranrined. Those who agree with quarantine should accept the cost, not imposing it on everyone. Why? Because you would then quickly realised the true cost of it and start realising the absurd compromise made with those measures. Right now the impact is diluted across government spending, delayed economical, sanitary and mental impacts. So we go along with disproportionate measures until we can measure their true costs

Take a serious look at whats going on across European countries with these mandates. It doesn't make mainstream news, but pick a few countries and find see the growing number of street protests, and the growth in participants. France currently has spinning up movements as a support of medical staff. Hospital employees claiming the measures such as forced vaccines are absurd, lost their jobs as a result of their stance and are actively voicing their concern. Perhaps they are more ignorant than you about history, maybe they are in echo chambers, but please don't make it seem like we have lunatic medical measure deniers on one side and conscious well educated who support ethical measures on the other.

[ben_w]

I was required to have a vaccine against Yellow Fever (I think) in order to visit Kenya a few years ago.

I’m in favour of greatly reducing travel restrictions (and migration restrictions), but vaccination is neither new nor radical.

Edit:

Dates back to 1933, apparently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Certificate_of_V...

[hirako2000]

I was required to take vaccines too, so what?

We are talking about a vaccine that doesn't even prevent infection. A vaccine that requires 2 doses ( apparently now a 3rd dose is coming in ) for a questionable immunity in effectiveness and lifespan. A vaccine not mandated to be taken when visiting a country at risk such as Kenya, no. Governments have been pushing for universal vaccination, whether one travels or not.

A worldwide campaign for vaccination, followed by pressure and mandating that a number of public places and businesses only vaccinated people to be, along with a tracker or pass being checked when visitors go to a restaurant, those are radical measures and a threat to individual freedom.

[ben_w]

> I was required to take vaccines too, so what?

What do you mean, “so what?” Isn’t this exactly what you’ve been complaining about?

> We are talking about a vaccine that doesn't even prevent infection.

No vaccine against any disease guarantees that in any specific individual. Yet at a population level, all the various COVID vaccines which were validated by the trials all reduce symptomatic infection, and the one I took in particular definitely reduces the risk of non-symptomatic infection.

> A vaccine that requires 2 doses ( apparently now a 3rd dose is coming in )

Commonplace. I’ve had several like that; I’d have to look up which disease they were against.

Also, how many doses you need for COVID depends on which of the half-dozen completely different vaccines you’ve been given.

> for a questionable immunity in effectiveness

False, assuming you’re using the word “questionable” in anything other than the sense in which scientists call gravity a “theory”.

> and lifespan.

Common in vaccines, because viruses mutate. Literally why influenza vaccines only last one year.

> A worldwide campaign for vaccination,

So like smallpox? And the only reason yellow fever (and polio, diphtheria, rubella, etc.) isn’t endemic in (e.g. the USA) are the various vaccine campaigns.

> followed by pressure and mandating that a number of public places and businesses only vaccinated people to be,

Quite a lot of childhood vaccines are “your child has the vaccine or they are not allowed to school”.

> along with a tracker or pass being checked when visitors go to a restaurant,

Those were put in before the vaccine, so as to help prevent the spread. They go away when enough people are vaccinated — or get ill — to create population immunity.

> those are radical measures and a threat to individual freedom.

Nothing you’ve listed is radical, and none of it is a threat.

What is a threat to individual freedom is that immunodeficient people have to hide in their homes because too many other people think vaccination is just a personal choice.

Plausibly also when the same get ill and fill up hospital beds so that people with non-pandemic illnesses and injuries can’t get treated.

As the saying goes: “your freedom to swing your fist stops with my nose“.

[yoz-y]

FWIW, requiring vaccines to viruses seems way more reasonable than banning liquids.