[adriancr]

So it is voluntary.

People just dont like the consequences of their actions.

> am against 'vaccination passports'

These are required when visiting certain countries where you are expected to be vaccinated against certain diseases.

Also for citizenship in most places (TB vaccine + scan of lungs, all other expected vaccines...)

So its merely adding a new vaccine to the already existing lists.

[Closi]

> So it is voluntary. People just dont like the consequences of their actions.

Voluntary is doing something by your own free will, which to me doesn't mean "there are legal consequences / you will be banned from your current way of living if you don't do it".

For instance, if you had to register as an organ donor otherwise you could never eat at a restaurant at any time in your life, I doubt we would call that registration 'completely voluntary'.

But I think this just comes down to a definition of what you count as voluntary, and if something can be truly voluntary if people are actually doing it because of coercion. It depends where you stop, if we fine people if they don't take a vaccine does that still count as voluntary, just because there are consequences to their actions? What if we put people in jail? Where is the line between something being voluntary and being coerced?

> These are required when visiting certain countries where you are expected to be vaccinated against certain diseases. Also for citizenship in most places (TB vaccine + scan of lungs, all other expected vaccines...)

To clarify I'm talking about domestic 'vaccine passports'. The word in the UK at least is used to describe the introduction of proving your identification and vaccination status every time you go into a restaurant or bar within the country etc as they have introduced in France, which also keeps a log of everywhere every citizen has visited.

If any country wants to block anyone from entering their country without a particular vaccination then that's fine and their decision.

[adriancr]

One person's freedoms end where another's begin.

You are saying that restricting someone's 'freedoms' make vaccine not voluntary.

Perhaps there is a bit of coercion, that being said, people are free to take it or not. If they do not they can't expect to be allowed to spread the disease and potentially kill other people.

When disease is eradicated they can be free to do whatever they like, until then they should be acting like responsible adults.

Your example of organ donor is unreasonable... a better example would be someone with active TB being allowed to go out and cough everywhere... That is also illegal... regardless if everyone else is vaccinated or not.

> To clarify I'm talking about domestic 'vaccine passports'. The word in the UK at least is used to describe the introduction of proving your identification and vaccination status every time you go into a restaurant or bar within the country etc as they have introduced in France, which also keeps a log of everywhere every citizen has visited.

That's just enforcing the law... Can't have a law that nobody checks.

[Closi]

Reasonable people can have different opinions on this.

Covid will never be eradicated, and I don’t personally think the price on passes (needing to carry and show your papers everywhere) is worth the prize.

“Carry your papers” and “papers please” was an authoritarian / police state trope a few years ago, so I think it’s something we have to be very careful introducing as these things can be hard to unwind after.

But again, a reasonable person could disagree, we all have to accept there is no absolute right or wrong here.

[ekianjo]

> . If they do not they can't expect to be allowed to spread the disease and potentially kill other people.

Wrong argument to use since vaccinated people spread the virus just as well. Get your facts right when you want to debate. Also, if you are vaccinated your risk of dying is virtually zero, so why would YOU care?

[Schiendelman]

Vaccinated people are much less likely to spread the virus. This is well documented: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...

We vaccinated care about those who can’t get vaccinated as well. It’s telling that many of the unvaccinated ask this question; it’s basic empathy.

[ekianjo]

Nbc is not a scientific outlet...

[ekianjo]

> So its merely adding a new vaccine to the already existing lists.

First, it's not a vaccine like the other ones, since the infection still spreads among vaccinated people. It does not sterilize the virus at all. It simply protects YOU, and only you, from the worst effects.

Second, why stop at vaccines then? Let's have passports for everything under the sun like China with their social score, and let's remove any kind of individual rights and submit to our dear leader(s) since they know what is best for everyone, even though this virus only kills people with at least 3-4 comorbidities. Let the ones most at risk get the shot, and the rest can decide for themselves. It's only a crisis because we are calling it one.

[Schiendelman]

You have some misinformation. The vaccinated are much less likely to spread the virus. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...

[adriancr]

oh no... slippery slope and misinformation...

Gee... i guess unvaccinated people flooding hospitals, spreading virus at a much higher rate screaming muh freedom is a great situation.

Meanwhile i know of people with cancer that cant schedule treatment because of unvaxxed above. We're still under restrictions because the same unvaxed people couldnt be bothered to isolate or even wear masks, going so far as faking vaccinations... All while vulnerable elderly realtives live in fear even vaxxed since even regular flu can kill them... And I can't visit them.

I have no sympathy for you and your slippery slope is bullshit.

Also, I'd be wary... In the past with TB it got so bad people would be chased out of their homes/cities and their homes burned... Hopefully we never reach that again