No. Requiring vaccine passports or vaccine cards incentivizes people to get vaccine passports and/or vaccine cards, which is exactly what we're seeing.
This is like counting lines of code or repo commits to see how productive a SWE is. If you want to incentivize X, you have to be very careful not to instead incentivize an imperfect proxy for X.
We see the same misunderstanding in implemented taxes. Ever notice the ebb and flow of "that new alcoholic beverage" that seems to be popular for a time and then disappear? There were seltzers and wine coolers, etc. Each disappeared as soon as a tax was levied specifically against that beverage.
Likewise, Tennessee laws crushed a single kind of tow truck (called a "wrecker", I think) when they targeted a specific configuration of truck. What you see now is mostly tilt-bed tow trucks because the other kind of truck is more expensive to operate.
Money/access incentivizes people to change their habits. We are creatures that seek a minimal energy expenditure solution. If going to some website and filling in a pdf that generates an "ok" looking picture is required to retain access to a bar, people will do that.
What realistic alternative do you propose? I don't think injecting everyone with a microdose of Covid before entering and then measuring the immune response scales very well, nor can be performed by regular bouncers/doormen/wait staff.
All it says is that the test said positive or negative. It in no way tells you anything about how bad your Covid is, how far along it is, and if you can spread it to others.
The tests are a last minute cash grab.
Stop getting tested and this thing ends. (However I know a bunch of folks who have to be tested anyway because they didn’t want to be boosted, despite getting the initial vax)
Absurd. "Stop going to the hospital and this thing ends" is on the same level. Cash flow has nothing to do with virus spread. It's interesting to consider misaligned incentives but you are alleging something much more serious without giving any credence to the actual purpose of testing.
Not wrong, however cash flow does have something to do with hospitalizations and covid death counts. Hospitals get subsidized for admitted covid patients and for covid deaths.
It is a common and well documented knowledge that obesity and alcohol use increase hospitalizations. Do you propose fitness and sobriety passports to incentivize healthier life styles?
If obese and alcohol user starts to fill up hospitals, spread diseases to other, causes trouble to other people, is recommended by public health officials I would say Yes. And I think obesity, alcohol are too different than current corona virus.
They are not different. I can assure you that we don't run many 911 calls on gym rats, runners, cyclists and hikers... unless they have injured themselves doing said activities. Drunk idiots and Obese people are the overwhelming majority of our calls.
Denying healthcare to those who don't take of themselves is a necessary evil to avoid the burden of freedumbs.
The obese also experience disproportionately more classic hits including diabetes, amputations, falls, strokes, heart attacks, and cancers.
Speaking of drunk idiots: from my vantage, I regularly see more than one rider piled on a Lime scooter in the middle of the street in nightclub traffic. Organ donors? Nawh. I think they're too selfish and stupid to opt-in. But big mommy and big daddy consequence-free, unlimited care will spare no expense to patch them back together (i.e., craniofacial trauma, TBI, ortho) if they hit a rock, pothole, curb, bump, or get run over.
Denying healthcare to people who need immediate emergency care is immoral -- so much so that it's one of the few things that even US law forces hospitals to do.
I think it is significantly more of a moral issue to punish people by letting them die in the street than it is a moral problem to require adherence to public health standards to eat in a restaurant.
Applied to any other public health concern, this suggestion would be silly. Should we deny people treatment for food poisoning if they want the freedom to break food-safety rules at a restaurant? Should we deny treatment to a traffic accident victim if they were speeding?
In parts of Canada, there is prohibition due to epidemic alcoholism. It doesn't solve it, but maybe it helps at the expense of increasing criminal activity.
I for one really enjoy the vaccine mandate in NYC. I feel much more comfortable knowing that if I catch it going out (seems likely), I'll be unlikely to spread it to anyone unvaccinated causing serious disease.
Of course I'm also boosted and got my flu shot (and do it every year), so I'm probably already more conscientious living in NYC than many.
If someone uses a fake to get in... well... there's only so much I can do, but I discourage it for their own health and for the health of others around them. I flat out told my friend who did the same as such.
I'm sure he'd get through it, but why get mega sick instead of getting the vaccine at this point?
Except your feeling of safety is leading you to be more likely to get it, and when you get it you are very likely to spread it. So a vaccine passport for a leaky vaccine like this one, likely does more harm than good.
This is why everyone reading this can attest to the fact that they know more people infected in the last 2 months (most of whom were vaccinated) than the entire rest of the pandemic.
Uhh yes? Rights conflict with rights all the time, we've already agreed that we have foregone certain rights in certain scenarios ("strict scrutiny") for the safety and welfare of the whole.
You have to wear pants, you can't drive at night without headlights, you can't sit in a restaurant yelling F*K at the top of your lungs in between bites, you have to get a permit to hold a music festival on the street, you can't post political signs on my property ...
Man is born free and eveywhere in chains, literally this is a solved problem from 260 years ago.
If people want to eat at restaurants unvaccinated in NYC they have a variety of options. They can eat outside in the stalls which often have heat and shields against the wind. They can order at home and eat with their friends who want to take that risk.
Going to a concert so you can more likely catch and spread a highly infectious virus and become more sick and hospitalized isn't some constitutional right.
And the value of not having people who'll willingly "limit someone else's freedoms" by spreading a virus they could be vaccinated against, well, at the end of the day, I'd rather "limit their freedoms" to use your term, then the person who didn't need to catch it anyways and is now sick or hospitalized. That sounds a lot more like "limited freedoms" than "Oh no, I can't see a play".
Why not allow businesses (and concerts and plays and etc.) to decide if they want to allow unvaccinated customers (or not)? That's their business. If you don't want to visit businesses (and concerts and plays and etc.) that allow unvaccinated customers then don't go to those businesses (and concerts and plays and etc.). That's your business.
>If someone uses a fake to get in... well... there's only so much I can do, but I discourage it for their own health and for the health of others around them.
I think you're conflating getting a vaccine card with getting the vaccine.
You should not really care about people who aren't vaccinated by choice. They have made their own decision and are ready to take the risk. And I'm all for giving them the opportunity.
Unpopular observation: if an ebola-deadly, vaccine-effective variant comes along, it would hopefully wipe out enough of those who are too dumb to take care of themselves or impetuously refuse vaccines. Modern life and medicine is too safe to select for common sense or intelligence.
Have you even considered that this is what many people who have not taken the vaccine are waiting for? They are going to go get the vaccine when this deadly strains comes out.
It is no secret MRNA vaccines do not last. It was known before COVID and no miraculous break through occurred that fixed this this issue they have. Previous MRNA vaccines applicants also showed you cannot just keep reinjecting yourself every x months. It causes a whole host of problem including weakening your immune system (EU recently rewarned about this for the Covid one).
So its seems the people not vaccinated will have an option to actually get protected, not so much for those that have taken it already though.
> Previous MRNA [sic] vaccines applicants also showed you cannot just keep reinjecting yourself every x months.
> So its seems the people not vaccinated will have an option to actually get protected, not so much for those that have taken it already though.
This is utter hogwash horseshit. Let me guess. You watch InfoWars, OAN, and Fox News. You need some better "alternative facts" that include how long vaccines take to generate neutralizing antibodies and how long they last.
* Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said.*
Glad you have to resort to person attacks and then quote an article backing up my point you can't constantly be giving boosters out.
I never said there wasn't a good strategy but rather than doing it x month was bad which in fact it is. You however had to make something up so you can launch your personal attack.
I've been really impressed with how much data my province (Alberta) has made available, but now, I'm wondering.
They recently had "technical difficulties", and the numbers changed from showing that double-vaxxed people were the most at-risk for omicron, to showing that unvaxxed people are. https://twitter.com/AB_CovidFacts/status/1486112498977685506
Also disturbing is that, if you get vaccinated and have issues within the first 14 days, they count you as being unvaccinated in all the reports: https://metatron.substack.com/p/alberta-just-inadvertently-c...