"Governments [May Be Constitutionally Obligated] to Provide 'Vaccine Passports'"

|

An interesting short article from Prof. Kevin Cope (Virginia) and my UCLA colleague Prof. Alexander Stremitzer (also at ETH Zurich). An excerpt:

In general, governments can restrict certain fundamental rights only if no less-restrictive alternatives exist for accomplishing the same objectives. In countries like Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, this argument holds generally under the so-called "proportionality test." In the United States, governments may not tread on fundamental rights unless the policy is "the least restrictive means" to achieve a "compelling" government interest…..

Throughout 2020, when temporary bans on certain high-risk, non-essential activities like high-density religious services, political rallies, public dining, theater attendance, and international travel were challenged, they generally (though not always) passed constitutional muster. For good reason, national legal systems tend to defer to officials' policy judgements when it comes to combating public-health crises. And indeed, many of those measures represented the best available means to slow the virus.

As we approach wider vaccine availability, however, that is no longer the case. Now, facilitating mass immunity—and exempting the immunized from restrictions—is not only the least liberty-restricting method for ending the pandemic through herd immunity, but the most effective one….

NEXT: The Eleventh Circuit Rules Against Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Abuse Victims' Efforts to Rescind His Secret Plea Deal

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Certainly the text presented makes no decent rational for the lede

    1. Agree with that.

    2. The article appears to assume that blanket bans against travel, in-person church services, political rallies or other fundamental rights have been upheld. Under that assumption, I think the lede follows, although I’m not sure in what applications the assumption is correct.

  2. Maybe someone can help me out here, but I sonr understand the general opposition to vaccine passports as a concept.

    Sure, if they last forever and restrictions last forever, that is a problem. But for now, allowing people who took the vaccine to, for example, attend concerts unmasked, that is a dramatic shift in favor of liberty. As of right now, they can’t!

    1. Aa CATO institute points out, it even benefits the anti-vaxxers in some instances. If a vaccine passport gets you into the non-distanced part of the restaurant, that opens more of the diatanced seats up.

      1. Modern, educated Americans might prefer establishments that do not offer “distanced seats.”

        1. Distanced seats includes outdoor seats.

          1. Nothing wrong with outdoor seats, if the establishment wishes to provide them and customers choose to use them.

    2. The general opposition is based on the historically-justified assumption that they (and the restrictions) will last forever and that they will create a precedent for ever more intrusive “papers please” requirements.

      Yes, they are liberty-enabling in the very shortest term but they create a high risk of liberty infringement in the longer term.

    3. “Sure, if they last forever”

      They will

      1. You seem disaffected, KCar. All of this damned progress, science, inclusiveness, education, modernity, and reason got you down?

        1. progressive-ism, science-ism, exclusiveness and indoctrination has me very down.

          1. The bad news is that you must expect to be disaffected until replacement occurs.

        2. It’s funny because the things you call “progress, science, inclusiveness, education, modernity, and reason” really don’t have any of those characteristics — they are just a religious cult that wears a skin suit with those labels.

    4. Because it’s not fair that responsible people who do what they can to protect themselves and others from the disease should have special privileges not given to irresponsible dolts whose superstition, contrariness, laziness, or whatever else was more important to them than being responsible citizens.

      1. I agree!

        It is really really stupid that people like me, who got vaccinated because all the scientific evidence points 100% in that direction as a thing you should do, continue to have to put up with this bullshit.

        And even if restrictions were released tomorrow, older people will still feel unsafe so less events and parties will happen because of that, so even if tomorrow the government decided screw it we are done, liberty is still impaired as long as a credible fear exists. The easiest way to remove that fear is to allow people show they aren’t at risk and get special privileges.

        And this doesn’t have to be government run, a private corporation could voluntarily choose to accept them or not.

        1. “Special privileges”? Like their constitutional rights?

          1. You don’t have a constitutional right to eat at a restaurant or go to a concert. Maybe you should, but you don’t. Don’t be dense.

            1. You have a constitutional right to free assembly. You have a constitutional right to freedom of religion.

              Should those rights depend on being vaccinated?

              1. You have a constitutional right to free assembly, but that doesn’t stop the state from having a law against public nudity. These rights aren’t unlimited, especially when they crash into other people’s.

                1. But that law (public nudity) applies to everyone equally.

                  Krychek proposes that the laws…shouldn’t apply to everyone equally. Some people are special. Others…aren’t.

                  1. Some people wear pants. Some people have evidence of vaccination.

                  2. Not really. If the proposal is “everyone has to have a vaccine to meet in a large group”, I don’t see how that’s any different from “everyone has to have pants on to go outside”.

                    1. Everybody has access to pants…

                    2. A vaccination is cheaper than a pair of pants, in my experience.

                    3. But much harder to actually obtain.

                    4. That ostensible concern is fading or illusory.

            2. You don’t have a constitutional right to eat at a restaurant

              The 1960s just called and wants their segregated lunch counters back.

          2. No constitutional right is being implicated. No one is required to be vaccinated. If you want to engage in certain activities, you have to demonstrate that you can do so at low risk to others. It’s not that different in principle from saying you don’t get to drive intoxicated. Drink if you want, but there is no right to endanger everybody else. Even though driving is arguably a constitutional right too.

            1. You have a constitutional right to free assembly. You have a constitutional right to freedom of religion.

              Should those rights depend on being vaccinated?

              1. You have a right to free speech but that doesn’t mean you can shout through a bullhorn under my bedroom window at midnight. No right is absolute. It’s not that you don’t have the right; it’s that if how you exercise it affects other people, they have rights too.

                1. So, just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR here, you believe people’s constitutional rights should depend on their vaccination status.

                  Correct?

                  1. So, just to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR here, you are wholly incapable of following any argument that contains any nuance whatsoever and isn’t completely black and white.

                    1. This is black and white Krychek,

                      You are prepared to deny certain people their constitutional rights, in comparison to other people, based on their vaccination status.

                      Correct?

                    2. Armchair Lawyer, I think it was JFK who said that every complex question has a simple answer that’s wrong. You paint things in stark black and white, but the world is far more nuanced than that. I carefully construct a nuanced response, and you want to bulldoze it over in favor of a stark black and white that doesn’t apply. Sorry, I don’t do simplistic answers to complex questions.

                      No constitutional right is absolute, especially when it bumps up against the rights of someone else. What about people who would like to not get Covid, or better yet, would like Covid to go away so we can all get back to normal (in which case your free assembly rights continue as before). Do their interests not count for anything? Your insistence that the only thing that matters is your rights is the language of a petulant teenager who can’t abide being told no.

                      And no, I’m not denying anyone any right, constitutional or otherwise. If they choose not to get vaccinated, that’s on them.

                    3. Krychek,

                      I’m going to say this very simply. What you propose is wrong. No matter how you try to couch it in “nuance” or complexity. It is wrong.

                      When you make people’s core constitutional rights dependent on something like “vaccine status” in comparison to other people’s rights…it is wrong.

                      Are all rights absolute? No. Are there cases where they can be impeded on? Yes. Are there cases where “CERTAIN PEOPLE” get constitutional rights that other people don’t for some reason? That is a crap storm of epic proportions

                      That brings up a host of massive problems that required constitutional amendments to fix. The 13th Amendment. The 19th Amendment. Among others.

                      So your “Nuance” is implying the single largest discrimination and imposition on liberties in at least the last 50 years. That’s why it’s wrong. You don’t treat people differently. And you ESPECIALLY don’t give people different constitutional rights.

                    4. AL,

                      I (and I assume K_2 also) do NOT grant your claim that you are denied any constitutional rights.

                      You may believe what you will. You may associate with others who are willing to associate with you. You may drink and you may also drive.
                      But you have NO constitutional right to endanger others.
                      Your entire argument rests on the claim that your rights are unlimited per your interpretation.
                      Nothing could be further from the truth

                    5. Don,

                      Constitutional rights are not absolute. Constitutional rights that “certain people” get that others don’t…

                      That’s a much bigger problem.

                    6. AL:

                      If those certain people were disfavored groups based on race, religion, national origin, etc., you’d have a better argument. But they’re not. The “certain people” that are disfavored self-select themselves by engaging in conduct that endangers other people. They’re being self-selected for less favorable treatment because they’re self-absorbed spoiled brats. Color me totally unsympathetic.

                      If you want the benefits of a vaccine passport, get the damn vaccine already.

                    7. Krychek,

                      We’ve already seen evidence that people of certain skin colors have preferential access to the vaccine.

                      So yes. Indirectly they are doing it on skin color.

                      Think about it.

                    8. I had zero problem getting an appointment for a vaccine and I’m a white guy. At this point, if you want the vaccine, you can get it.

                    9. “We’ve already seen evidence that people of certain skin colors have preferential access to the vaccine.”

                      This is like the conversation about tech companies discriminating against white people. There’s this claim that there’s some sort of reverse discrimination going on, and then you look at the actual results:

                      https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

                      “White people received a higher share of vaccinations compared to their share of cases and deaths and their share of the total population in most states reporting data.”

                    10. “I had zero problem getting an appointment for a vaccine and I’m a white guy. At this point, if you want the vaccine, you can get it.”

                      Good for you. You’re one of the privileged.

                      Now think about those who aren’t privileged.

                    11. Vaccine providers in my area are accepting — even requesting— walk-in customers.

                    12. AL,
                      “We’ve already seen evidence that people of certain skin colors have preferential access to the vaccine.”
                      In the US, there will be no impediment to vaccination by May 1. Your argument (to the extent that it might have a modicum of truth within) is moot.

              2. Should those rights depend on being vaccinated?

                Armchair, of course not—not during normal times—meaning almost always. But during a public health emergency involving deadly contagion? Expect all rights of that sort—meaning the sort which promote contagion—to be curtailed or suspended. Societies legitimately prioritize a right to live ahead of the others.

                I mention that not because I think you could not figure it out for yourself, but because it is important to be completely forthright about both the implications and the stakes of public health policies chosen to suppress deadly contagion. Arguments from the other side—if they do not acknowledge the stakes, or if they misdescribe the implications—tend not to be forthright.

                Let’s be clear about the general case, involving contagious diseases. We should try to keep policies on a sound basis to meet whatever challenges those might deliver. It is a mistake to try to constrain policy legally according to some lesser challenge, and then have to undo that framework amidst crisis, as a harmful impediment during a more-severe emergency.

                Covid-19 has been an awful experience—an ordeal for the nation. It has killed Americans at a rate about 8 times faster than battle casualties during WW II, and nobody supposes WW II was not a big deal. Already, even adjusted for base population, Covid-19 has killed more Americans during one year than WW II did during its nearly 4-year span from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay.

                But compared to countless previous pandemics known from history, Covid-19 is small potatoes. Sooner or later, something far more dire will be along. During any such scourge, almost no one would be complaining as you have been doing. Almost everyone would demand one thing and one thing only—whatever policies, including sacrifices of whatever liberties, would be best calculated to preserve as many lives as could be salvaged.

                That isn’t really speculation. It is a simple fact about human experience, and about the way the world works. There is no point in arguing against it.

                1. Stephen,

                  You just justified the mass internment of Japanese Americans in WWII…

                  1. AL:

                    The hyper-inflated hyperbole you’re now engaging in is just silly. And convinces no one.

                    1. You said it yourself Krychek,

                      “the world is far more nuanced”
                      “No constitutional right is absolute”
                      “especially when it bumps up against the rights of someone else.”

                      Don’t other US citizens have the right not to be sabotaged by Japanese Americans? Of course you can limit the freedoms of Japanese Americans. Especially during a war! It’s national security. And besides, aren’t they “(insert insult here to demean them)”.

                      This is your logic. This is your view of America. Where constitutional rights can be denied to certain people.

                      It’s not my view. I treat everyone equally.

                    2. No it’s not my logic. It’s a caricature by someone deliberately misrepresenting my position.

                    3. “Goldberg was not excluded from the political rally because of hostility to him or his religion. He was excluded because we are at war with the COVID, because the properly constituted public health authorities feared an resurgence of COVID and felt constrained to take proper public health measures, because they decided that the health urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens who didn’t have the vaccine be segregated from the public temporarily, and, finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of emergency in our public health leaders—as inevitably it must—determined that they should have the power to do just this.”

                    4. There is no analogy between thinking Japanese-Americans are disloyal, and thinking folks who haven’t gotten a vaccine can get and transmit a virus.

    5. Now, do the same for a political rally.

      Some people have liberty. Others are denied that liberty.

      1. Armchair, that’s how you know there is a public health emergency. Customary liberties get curtailed. When the emergency ends, the liberties come back. The safeguard for that is that practically no one wants it any other way.

        1. If liberties get curtailed due to an emergency…OK.

          If liberties get “selectively” curtailed so that just some groups have them curtailed….not OK.

          1. Open-ended emergency with no termination date….also not Ok.

            1. Good way to make the emergency go away is for everyone to get vaccinated!

            2. It’s not open-ended. The cause is clear.

              Emergencies do not come with a termination date.

        2. Critical to your analysis is the statement that “When the emergency ends, the liberties come back.” How much of your liberty have you gotten back since the emergency that triggered the Patriot Act ended? How about any other emergency that led to security-theater legislation?

          If we had a track record of actually restoring liberties after the emergency ended, there would be a lot less opposition. Instead, we have a long historical record of politicians using crises to grant themselves new powers that only very rarely ever get reversed (short of armed revolution).

          1. I’m as big on restoring liberties as you are, but I’m also not convinced that the circumstances that triggered the Patriot Act have gone away. (I’m also not convinced that everything in the Patriot Act was actually necessary, but that’s a different issue.) There are still Muslim extremists, and now we have militias and Q-Anon to worry about too.

          2. Rossami, have more faith in our culture.

          3. I grant you the Patriot Act gripe. I share it. Problem is, most of it should never have happened in the first place.

            But if you suppose it is still with us because evil, “politicians,” are doing what people don’t want them to do, I think you are mistaken. I think there is a constituency for the kinds of usurpations you complain of. I think it is lopsidedly on the political right, and I wish I knew how to make it go away.

            I don’t think there is any such constituency for endless masking, or for social distancing requirements. Perhaps with rare hypochondriac exceptions, pretty much everyone wants those gone as soon as possible.

            Too much principled thinking runs into trouble when it turns out identical principles don’t work alike in various factual situations.

  3. +1

    I think that many of the childish anti-vaxxers will at some point run into something they want to do that requires a vaccine, and they will shut up and get the shots.

    1. So…you’re going to make your constitutional rights, like right to assembly, dependent on getting a shot in the arm?

      What next? You need a vaccine to vote?

      1. Does this vaccine passport for the right to vote include a photo ID? Would it have to be presented in person? Would it preclude mail in voting, the biggest contributor to voter fraud according to Jimmy Carter?

        I might just support it then.

        1. Disaffected, flailing, obsolete, cranky right-wingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

      2. Naw, we can make a private restaurant choose whether or not to allow patrons to exercise their decidedly non-constitutional right to eat at that restaurant.

        Look, if a cake shop has the right to not serve gay people because it disagrees with them about gay weddings, which I actually don’t mind as a general rule the couple has a right to marry not to visit your restaurant specifically, why can’t that same restaurant have a right to bar non-vaccinated people, which, imo, is decidedly more reasonable thing to do?

        Because that is the form the laws currently take, they are bars on private businesses from making visitation dependant on proof of vaccination.

        1. So what are the limitations with your vaccine passports?

          Can someone without one cross state lines? Attend a political rally? Attend a religious service? Walk down the street without a mask? Or are all those just for the vaccinated people…

          (Oh, and BTW, in regards to the gay cake shop, it was the activity requested disagreed with. Not whether the client was gay or not. A gay client could’ve bought a wedding cake just fine. The baker just wouldn’t make one specially for a gay wedding. Likewise, a restaurant could deny a “anti-vaxxer” party at its restaurant if it wanted to.)

          1. Can someone without one cross state lines? Attend a political rally? Attend a religious service? Walk down the street without a mask?

            Yes, yes, yes*, and yes.

            (The asterisk on religious service is because the Church can kick them out.)

            Oh, and BTW, in regards to the gay cake shop, it was the activity requested disagreed with.

            Which doesn’t change the analogy. You are perfectly fine with businesses refusing service based on homophobia, but not based on patrons being socially responsible and getting the vaccine.

            1. Can a cop pull you over and ask for your vaccine status card?

              Can you be arrested for not having a vaccine status card?

              Can you be arrested for refusing to show a vaccine status card?

              1. No, no, and no*

                This time the asterisk involves trespass law. If a private business asks for proof of vaccination, you refuse to give it and are asked to leave, and stay anyway, that’s trespassing.

                1. So your vaccine card would have absolutely no government power behind it the government would be unable to use it in any way whatsoever for any item, event, gathering, travel, etc?

                  Your vaccine card would essentially be a AAA membership card?

                  It’s a bit different from the OP…

                  1. Not necessarily.
                    If China’s example were followed, then your smartphone ID would be needed to unlock the entrance to shops, banks etc.
                    I realize that is one thing that worries you.

              2. Literally no one has said you can. No one is proposing vaccine mandates. Again, stop being dense.

                It is about the private right to engage in certain activities as a result of having been vaccinated. No, the police cannot do that.

            2. “Which doesn’t change the analogy.”

              It does change the analogy. A business is perfectly free to refuse to host an anti-vaxxer party if it so desired. Or a pro-MAGA gathering at a restaurant. Or refuse to bake an anti-vaxxer cake. Or refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

              The baker can’t refuse to bake a cake for someone because they haven’t been vaccinated. Or because they are gay.

              It’s a difference between a message they disagree with and discrimination.

              1. That’s ridiculous. The only discrimination you described was refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, which is homophobia.

                The rest of those things are not discrimination. They are just the private choices of businesses.

                1. They’re all different events Dilan. Gay Wedding. MAGA party. Anti-Vaxxer gathering.

                  They’re all just private choices by the business.

                2. Correct answer is that they are all discrimination. Nothing more or less wrong with any of them.

                3. I disagree with that. The baker has sold many cakes to gay customers, but what he refuses to do is design and execute a custom cake celebrating gay marriage or sex changes.

                  He feels that makes him a participant in something his religion forbids.

                  I think he is obligated to sell off the shelf items, but I don’t think he his obligated to use his creative talents in a manner that makes him uncomfortable.

                  1. I don’t doubt you think the baker should not be required to create a custom cake because of of his First Amendment right to not be compelled to speak messages he does not want to. But assuming for the sake of argument you are correct in that analysis (Eugene disagrees and the Court did not answer the question in Masterpiece Cakeshop), he nonetheless is discriminating against gay people. It’s just that his First Amendment rights trump the anti-discrimination statute.

              2. The marriage of a gay couple has consistently been interpreted as being so closely linked to being gay that refusing to serve the marriage is discrimination against gay people.

                1. But refusal to bake a cake with a quote from the bible, even though the bible is closely linked with religion, is…just fine.

                  1. If the refusal is only for a religious message against homosexuality (e.g., God Hates Gays) but not a refusal for a similar secular message (e.g., Darwin Hates Gays), then that would be religious discrimination. If on the other hand, it is a refusal for all anti-gay messages, it is not religious discrimination.

                    1. Right….

                      So even though the quote from the bible is closely linked with religion, the baker can refuse to bake it, because he can claim that it’s not religious discrimination but he’s doing it on the basis of his ethics.

                      But if a gay wedding is closely linked with homosexuality, the baker can’t refuse to bake it. The baker can’t claim it’s a refusal based on his ethics….

                      Ain’t that a paradox.

                    2. The argument isn’t that his refusal is based on his ethics. Instead, the argument is his refusal is in no way based on the religiosity of the message. As such, the full scope of anti-gay messages he refuses to serve are not closely linked to religion. Unlike with same-sex marriage where the couple is almost always gay, there are scads of secular anti-gay messages.

                2. Said bakery doesnt sell gay cakes. They only sell straight cakes. Any and everyone would have to go to the gay cake store down the street for those.

              3. “The baker can’t refuse to bake a cake for someone because they haven’t been vaccinated. ”
                But the baker could refuse to have the unvaccinated walk into the bakery to pick-up the cake. See the difference?

      3. “You need a vaccine to vote?”
        Finally you have an interesting idea.
        I did not say that I agree, but it is interesting.

    2. Dilan,

      I am a advocate of all but the medically counterindicated to get a vaccine.
      However, I fail to see how a mandated COVID-ID is a necessity when we still have no idea of the duration of immunity, when more transmissible and more virulent variants are appearing and when the media of such an ID are either a smartphone app OR a difficult to forge document physically akin to a US passport (with similar penalties of forgery). If booster shots are periodically, the “passport” would need pages for the annual visas.

      What we are speaking of is far more intrusive on liberty that a national ID that the US public has opposed for decades or even a national voter ID. If the very presence of the latter is a de facto discrimination against the disadvantaged the COVID passport is more so.

      Just to avoid the expected retorts, I admit that if my favored airline required a physical certification of my vaccine status. I would promptly get such a certification as long as it did not require my carrying a smart phone.

      1. We already have a ton of ID requirements. Ever tried to get a drink at a bar? Charge something with a credit card? Get on an airplane?

        This is not national ID. It’s just one more private-sector imposed ID requirement.

        1. Is the private sector also issuing the ID?

        2. Dilan,
          Your retort is a sophistry. A government mandated ID would not be just another private sector card.
          BUT, you are correct that you need an ID to get a drink at O’Hare, or to get a cellphone contract or do do many things in the US. So what is so troubling in requiring an ID to vote?

          1. So what is so troubling in requiring an ID to vote?

            Answer same as before. The troubling part is who is doing the requiring, and who is being required. Voting is unlike other cases, where the conduct regulated falls under legitimate government authority. Voting is not done under government authority. It is done under sovereign authority.

            Voting is not a right. It is much more than a right, it is a sovereign power. Members of the joint sovereignty exercise their constitutive voting power at pleasure, not under constraint—and especially not under constraint by government.

            Voting requirements imposed by government—including ID requirements—purport to put sovereign power under constraint. Doing that turns American constitutionalism on its head. Like all other government-imposed voting abuses, the result is a government which tries to choose its voters, by imposing measures to inconvenience or exclude voters which governments think might constrain government.

            That does not mean voter IDs cannot happen. It means that if they are to happen, it has to happen without government initiative. If the People acting jointly in their sovereign capacity decide they want voter IDs, of course they can decree them. The legitimate method would be a constitutional amendment, initiated by the People themselves.

            1. “It means that if they are to happen, it has to happen without government initiative.
              Stephan,
              I am afraid that is a fantasy. Just look at all the changes in voting procedures made in 2020 due to covid concerns. These were all done my government initiate, not by any vote of the people as sovereign.
              There is absolutely no reason in the Constitution that would forbid voter IDs without an amendment. Mail-in ballots and their regulation did not require an amendment.
              As their more extreme advocates envision Vaccine Passports, these would rapidly become a free to obtain national identity card and therefore and easy to require voter ID with all of the objections of discrimination effects removed.

  4. Well, the latest is that this is going to be like the flu shot where we are going to need annual (or semi-annual) booster shots.

    Which then raises the issue of the compelling interest justifying ANY restriction on liberty, other than the fascist desire of bureaucrats to control the lives of other people.

    New Hampshire no longer requires masks as of today 🙂

    1. There’s no imposition on liberty. Jacobson was rightly decided. Everyone should just get their shots.

      1. Jacobson did not decide what you apparently think it did.

      2. No, not everyone should get shots.

        My mother is 93, and has had allergic reactions to vaccinations in the past, she has decided she doesn’t want to risk it. My son is young and healthy, and he isn’t at risk from covid, and he doesn’t want to get the vaccine either.

        The point is to get to herd immunity, 65-70% is good enough, thru both vaccinations and natural immunity.

        If you are worried about covid then you get vaccinated.

        1. Your mother is exactly the kind of surplus member of the population that the future State these sickos want to usher in will love to “vaccinate.”

        2. And if you reject vaccination — without a legitimate, verified reason — you should be unwelcome at businesses disinclined to transact with anti-social malcontents.

          1. If that’s where it ended, I think you’d quickly find very few businesses that were willing to mandate experimental vaccines for their customers, and then we customers could pick and choose in a sort of free-market way, which places we would like to go to.

            But that’s not what is being proposed. You will bake the cake, dammit, is being proposed.

            1. Funny that Artie always falls on the side of “do what you’re told.” As long as he thinks he is the one doing the ordering.

              1. You are mistaken, Vinny. I would not mandate vaccine passports. I also would not mandate rejection of reliance on vaccine passports.

                Let the market sift this, at least with respect to private business premises.

            2. “If that’s where it ended, I think you’d quickly find very few businesses that were willing to mandate experimental vaccines for their customers”

              That might be true in the context of poorly educated, down-market, rural communities. It likely would be a bad bet in modern, educated, successful, skilled communities. Chains — dining, pharmacy, grocer, specialty retail, entertainment — would almost surely choose safer standards.

            3. And you know damn well the government is going to put the full weight of its thumb on vaxx scale and voluntary will lose all meaning

        3. “to get to herd immunity, 65-70% is good enough”

          There is no compelling medical evidence for that claim. For a virus as transmissible as the B.117 variant of SARS-CoV-2 the relevant percentage could be 80% or more. In addition there is published medical evidence that the post illness resistance to COVID-19 declines more rapidly in post disease persons than in the vaccinated.

          Your mom may have good medical reason not to get the vaccine. My 98 year-old mom both had covid-19 and has now been vaccinated with no ill effect.

        4. There aren’t a bunch of 93 year olds dropping dead of the vaccine.

          This isn’t a fricking consumer choice. This is medical science. And being a science denier can kill other people.

          1. “This isn’t a fricking consumer choice. This is medical science. And being a science denier can kill other people.”
            You overstate the case.
            Whether to vaccinate is a prudential decision. How you and I respond to Brett’s of AL’s decision is out prudential decision. But the medical science is far from being on as compelling as basis as is Newton’s law of gravity or his three laws of motion.

          2. I expect there aren’t a lot of 93 year olds taking the vaccine. They’re not a big percentage of the population to begin with.

            But, sure, the reactions appear to be due to the immune system over-reacting, and 93 year olds aren’t known for highly aggressive immune responses.

            No, this is NOT “medical science”. All medical science, science of any sort, can tell you, is what probably is, and the likely results of courses of action. Science does not go further than that, to tell you which course of action to take.

            That’s getting more into the realm of political philosophy, ethics, not science. It calls for value judgements.

            1. Value judgments . . . such as ‘do I want to permit this unvaccinated customer to enter my store?”

            2. Here in California, the vaccination rate of the very old was very high. Nursing homes got priority, as did old people, and a lot of them got them early.

              They have also been prioritized in other jurisdictions.

              This vaccine is perfectly safe for the elderly.

            3. ” It calls for value judgements.”

              Actually you misuse that term. It does require prudential balancing judgements

      3. You want to be a guinea pig for an experimental “vaccine”, two of which of the major types have been pulled for safety concerns (with 2,000 people dead from them thus far), go right ahead.

        Don’t force me to get experimental DNA altering shots…my body, my choice, right?

        lol

        1. “experimental DNA altering shots”
          where did you get the bizarre idea that mRNA vaccines are a gene therapy against SARS-CoV-2?

          1. Don, you’re talking to someone who, in a recent thread, was unaware that syllogisms have three terms each of which is used twice. That he also doesn’t know squat about basic biology should be no real surprise then.

            1. K_2,
              Ah, you’re correct.
              But in me, hope spring eternal that even the mad will acquire a bit of good sense.

          2. Oh, by listening to and reading interviews with Dr. Mike Yeadon, the former CSO and VP, Allergy and Respiratory Lab Research Head with Pfizer Global R&D and co-founder of Ziarco Pharma Ltd. In short, they are find for aggressive cancer treatments in people who would otherwise die, but as a public health measure where you’re trying to get 350 million people to take one, not so fine.

            The Johnson and Johnson vaccine was an actual traditional vaccine, alas, it was made with aborted baby parts and killed people with blood clots.

            1. “killed people with blood clots”

              One person, which is one percent of the people who accidentally die from acetaminophen each year. But yes, let’s use that as a pretext not to get vaccinated.

            2. m_k
              the mad in your name is correct
              “alas, it was alas, it was made with aborted baby parts and killed people with blood clots.”
              No, the research used cell lines from aborted fetal tissue. While you may have religious qualms about that your claim “alas, it was made with aborted baby parts” is a gross lie

          3. They’re not teaching enough molecular biology in HS, obviously. That’s been obvious on both sides of this argument.

            To be fair, the vaccines ARE experimental. And we really don’t know that they don’t, oh, cause auto-immune reactions down the road, or something similar. The idea that exercising your civil liberties is going to depend on proving you got vaccinated is bad enough, proving you accepted an experimental vaccine? That’s pretty hard core.

            1. “They’re not teaching enough molecular biology in HS, obviously.”

              Commissar Bellmore, congratulations on becoming the Minister of Education.

              “And we really don’t know that they don’t, oh, cause …” You can say the same about any new pharmaceutical. I think you should go back to study molecular and cell biology.

              1. That’s right, you can say the same of any new pharmaceutical, which probably has something to do with the fact that we don’t normally distribute experimental pharmaceuticals population-wide.

                1. We don’t normally have pandemics either.

                  But we have one here, and we have a bunch of childish people making up unscientific reasons to be selfish. Get the damned shots.

                  1. I’ve had the damned virus, the shot just simulates what I’ve been through for real, so, no. I don’t need it at this point.

                    A science denier, pretending there’s no such thing as natural immunity, that’s what you are.

                    1. No, you can get it again. Just get the damned shots. For the first time in recent history, have some concern for your fellow human being.

                    2. There is no natural immunity in general, but there can be natural resistance and that level of resistance can diminish in time.

                    3. but there can be natural resistance and that level of resistance can diminish in time.

                      Which of course, is completely unlike the vaccines that now we’re told will need annual boosters to remain effective.

        2. The vaccines that that were pulled were not the “experimental” mRNA stuff, it was actually the vaccines based around technology that has been used for every vaccine going back 70 years.

          So frankly I’m not sure where this bizzare idea new means bad comes from.

          Also pulling the vaccines was a patently ridiculous decision, but the only real justification for it (and it was a stupid justification, but whatever) was that people like you would freak out if you disclose the risks, which were neglible.

          Which, I suppose they were right about that given your comment.

          1. I never said it was bad because it was new. I’m saying it’s experimental, and thus unwise to give to 350 million Americans without extensive testing.

            What’s a few more deaths, eh? It’s just a statistic.

            1. The last report I saw said the number of deaths was at .008% of those vaccinated, which is actually a better number than some other vaccines have had. You’re statistically more likely to get hit by a truck.

              1. Good, I’m making progress with your perceptionis. Now apply that safety logic you’re using to entire pandemic, for an illness that has a 99.97% survival rate…if you even get it, and less if you don’t have pre-existing conditions.

                Seriously, though, the reason why the J&J vax and Astra Zenneca DNA vax were pulled, is because we just don’t know the “why.” The J&J vax killed otherwise healthy women in their 30-40s. What you’re not thinking about, is if we don’t know why, logically, we don’t know how many more it will kill if we try to give them to 350 million Americans.

                1. And you know what? We’re damned lucky that it has such a low virulence rate. Because there are plenty of really nasty viruses with far higher virulence rates out there just waiting to hitch a ride to a major urban area. And when one of them does, the same contrarians, the same superstitious idiots, the same nobody-tells-me-what-to-do-what-about-my rights crowd, will be just as adamant about refusing to comply with public health measures as they were for covid, with the result that we’ll have 10 million dead rather than half a million.

                  One of the really scary lessons from this virus is just how many people flatly will not do what the health authorities ask. This is probably a dry run for something far more serious. And when it hits, it’s going to be a disaster.

                  Your chance of dying from any of the vaccines is less than being hit by a truck (which nobody is advocating taking off the road, by the way). On the other side of the ledger, the more people who get vaccinated, the sooner we get herd immunity and it goes away. That does not strike me as difficult to balance.

                  1. Just like Pelosi knew the tiny risk when she went to get her haircut, people can decide for themselves what risks to take for themselves. Everyone weighs the known risks of covid (very low for most people) vs. the unknown risks of a new vax. If you want the vax, get it.

              2. I think it’s due to the fact that they’re currently in the middle of a moral panic that doesn’t permit rational thought or risk/benefit analysis.

                1. Whether it was wise to pull the J&J vaccine depends on a number of factors, not least how long it will take to make a final determination as to what’s going on. A one or two week pause is different than one that is months long.

                  Does it harm an identifiable set of people?

                  Did those who died have some specific medical condition in common?

                  Can production of the other vaccines be boosted to make up for the missing J&J product?

                  I’d like more information before forming a strong opinion one way or the other.

                  1. “for an illness that has a 99.97% survival rate…if you even get it, and less if you don’t have pre-existing conditions. ”

                    Another BOGUS claim.
                    In the US the CFR is ~1.8% for COVID-19. Even seasonal flu has a CFR greater that 0.1%.

                    1. In the US the CFR is ~1.8% for COVID-19.

                      Someone who has truly been Researching This Stuff for the past year, surrounded by Really Smart People, would not make the embarrassingly rookie mistake of conflating the IFR (“deaths from all infections”) with the CFR (“deaths from the subset of infections we happened to measure”).

                      Give it up, Don.

                  2. Does it harm an identifiable set of people?
                    Yes. They are all women.

                    Did those who died have some specific medical condition in common?
                    There is, I believe, only one who died. Unless you are conflating the J&J with the AstraZeneca vaccine.
                    With the others who developed blood clots? That is the only question worth considering during this pause.

                    Can production of the other vaccines be boosted to make up for the missing J&J product?
                    No. They are already producing all vaccines as fast as they can.

                    1. “Did those who died have some specific medical condition in common?
                      Yes, low blood platelet counts

                2. “moral panic”
                  That is your cry of PORNOGRAPHY !
                  It is bogus

    2. Don’t believe news stories about the future. You will either need a booster shot or not. Just wait and see.

  5. It will be very hard to prove that any restrictions at all on vaccinated people accomplish anything, let alone that they accomplish a “compelling government interest”.

  6. 1984 wasn’t written as a how to manual.

  7. That (vaccine passports) is a dangerous idea, filled with potential major issues.

    Right now, we require proof of vaccination of a near universally available vaccine (typically measles) for a relatively limited number of items. International travel, school enrollment, some employment.

    But proposing to need “vaccine passports” for a wide range of issues is…stunning. More so for a vaccine that isn’t universally available. Let’s go with one example, “political rallies.”

    Right now, if you want to go to a political rally, you just go. You don’t need ID. You don’t need citizenship. You just go.

    Now, imagine requiring a “vaccine passport”. Perhaps there is a MAGA rally in DC. Or a BLM rally in Alabama. The cops decide they need to pull over everyone who goes to that rally. They all need to be checked for their “vaccine passport”. And if they don’t have it…they get arrested. Because the vaccine passport is required.

    What’s that? You weren’t one of the privileged groups who got early access? Turns out you don’t get to assert your right to political assembly. Only those lucky enough to get the vaccine now have that right. What’s that? You’re somewhat skeptical of the vaccine due to past testing? Turns out you lose your right to demonstrate politically.

    That’s just the beginning of the potential issues.

    1. “The cops decide they need to pull over everyone who goes to that rally. They all need to be checked for their “vaccine passport”.”

      You are basically describing what the CCP has done in China

      1. It is a surprise that I think it’s a horrible idea here? And that the US isn’t China and shouldn’t be…

        1. If you read my comment above, you’d have seen that I consider the compulsory ID a dubious idea at best.

          1. Apologies. I feel the damage to liberty with this proposal can be truly amazing.

    2. AL,

      Is “No shoes, no shirt, no service” a deprivation of constitutional rights? If not, how does it differ from “No vaccination, no service?”

      1. Is “No shoes, no shirt, no service” a deprivation of constitutional rights? If not, how does it differ from “No vaccination, no service?”

        One is about what one wears and can take off later and is a trivial matter of public presentation. The other is about what one has injected into one’s body that can never be undone, especially if it is an “experimental gene therapy” altering concoction, and about one’s internal biology that no one sees but is experienced forever by the injectee, for better or worse.

        Apparently, cultural and political support for “my body my choice” that would existentially affect others’ lives and also Nuremberg instituted medical experimental proscriptions were just comforting ruses for a while.

        1. That’s an answer to a question I wasn’t asking. There are obviously differences between wearing clothes and being vaccinated. The implication of my question wasn’t whether such differences exist, but whether a business proprietor has the right to require one and but not the other.

          Let’s stipulate, arguendo, to your tendentious characterization of the COVID vaccine. For purposes of my question, so what? Do you dispute a restaurant owner’s right to serve exclusively orphans? Double amputees? Do you think getting the COVID vaccine is worse than losing your parents? Your limbs?

          When did self-described conservatives stop caring about a business owner’s right of speech and association?

  8. Vaccination Passports: The Cornerstone of a Totalitarian State

    Ushering China’s Social Credit System into America.

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/vaccination-passports-cornerstone-totalitarian-matthew-vadum/

    1. The key point of the system implementation, and every version I’ve heard seriously proposed, is that it does NOT simply demonstrate that you’ve been vaccinated. You could do THAT by giving everybody who’s been vaccinated an identical card that just had, “Yup, I’ve been vaccinated!” printed on it. As a hefty fine for falsifying one.

      No, these are ‘passports’ that identify you in particular, and then you’re looked up in a database. Every time you swipe it, the government knows exactly where you are, and what you’re trying to do. And any time the government wants, it can add conditions for that light to turn green instead of red.

      Are your taxes current? Did you miss an alimony payment? Too many of your comments have been flagged in the last month? You’re a registered gun owner? The possibilities are endless, and every would be totalitarian is drooling over the prospect.

      My line in the sand. I WILL NOT GET ONE. Any politician who votes to approve them is forever dead to me.

      No vaccine passport, ever, period.

      1. All those same arguments go for drivers’ licenses and other licenses too. You should oppose those as well. Or at least only support them when they can’t be used as leverage against people.

        1. Oh, really? When was the last time you had to swipe your driver’s license in order to enter a restaurant?

          1. You have to have a drivers license to arrive at the restaurant without being arrested.

  9. I’m pretty sure the least liberty restricting approach is to just forget the whole idea.

    First, there’s squat in the way of proof that lockdowns, masks, and social distancing actually accomplished anything substantial.

    Second, once the people who are actually concerned about Covid have been able to vaccinate, the only people at risk are the people voluntarily assuming the risk. Protecting people from themselves is not a compelling government interest in a free society.

    Third, I’ve already had Covid. And, honestly, I’ve had worse head colds. Why should I get vaccinated? Every indication I’ve seen is that government is planning on pretending natural immunity isn’t a real thing, and that only vaccines actually make you immune to anything. Maybe that flies for ‘rational basis’, which doesn’t actually require that the basis of a law be rational, but a false basis for a law ought to be fatal under strict scrutiny.

    Finally, every indication is that we’re not talking about a simple card, or a stamp on your driver’s license, that you can just show somebody and you’re good. Every implementation I’ve heard them talking about amounted to a combined total tracing system and ready made opportunity to roll out social credit scoring.

    That makes this my line in the sand. A lot of people’s line in the sand.

    1. Brett,
      “Third, I’ve already had Covid. ”
      You love to display your red badge of courage. You were lucky. That is all that you should conclude.

      “government is planning on pretending natural immunity isn’t a real thing”
      But there is good (but not yet compelling) published evidence that resistance to SARS-CoV-2 infection decreases more rapidly in post covid patients than in the vaccinated. You paranoid claim of nefarious government claims is just… well… paranoia.

      “every indication is that we’re not talking about a simple card, or a stamp on your driver’s license, that you can just show somebody and you’re good. ”
      On that item I also have my suspicions that the one-time stamp absent tracking mechanisms will be worthless in a year’s time.

      1. No, I wasn’t lucky.

        First, I wasn’t lucky because I’d been following the research all along, and supplementing with vitamin D, as well as getting plenty of sun. The link between low vitamin D levels and severe cases of Covid is pretty solid at this point.

        Second, I wasn’t “lucky”, because about 1/3 to 1/2 of people who contract Covid are asymptomatic, so that just by being sick enough to notice and bother getting tested, I’d had a worse than average case.

        Perhaps you mean, I wasn’t extraordinarily unlucky?

        1. You were lucky. And you actually have no real data to show otherwise.
          Your vitamin D experience is just a claim of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Plenty of post 50 people who were ostensibly healthy died. What we have NO idea about is any correlation of CFR with a solid measurement of pre-infection strength of a person’s immune system.

          1. God, you’re infuriating. I link to an actual study in Nature, and you just blow it off.

            1. Overwhelming evidence is that Covid is not a threat to healthy people with normal immune systems. I had no fear of it whatsoever once we started getting actual data. Yet, this is why people are going to be forced to get vaxd, and not choose to get it on their own. If Covid was as bad as its these people are saying EVERYONE would voluntarily take it. The fact that is not that bad is why so many wont.

              1. “Overwhelming evidence is that Covid is not a threat to healthy people with normal immune systems.”
                Your overwhelming evidence does NOT exist. Please provide an epidemiological study of more than 1 million covid patients that would substantiate that claim.
                Also be specific about what a normal immune system is.

            2. A general feature correlation does not explain your case. You have no evidence that taking vitamin D (and I do) made your case mild.
              And the Nature study does not claim that daily doses of D will lower your risk of a serious episode.

            3. “God, you’re infuriating.”
              Brett,
              I say the same about you.

              For someone who claims to have taken 4 university level bio courses and who seems to look occasionally at journal papers, your view are remarkably far outside that of the mainstream of medical and biomedical researchers and clinicians.

              Since I have worked with a group of virologists and clinicians for the past year on my own SARS-CoV-2 related research I make that judgement with complete confidence.

    2. It’s long past time for the restrictionist fear-mongers to be forced to prove their restriction schemes work. That might have been impractical a year ago, but they shouldn’t be allowed keep using that excuse forever.

      Hopefully some judge somewhere rejects the hand-waving and starts a trend of requiring actual evidence to support anti-freedom policies.

      1. Ben,
        I am afraid that the burden of proof rests upon the pig-headed who seem to care little but the health of others.

        1. Lying about danger isn’t “care” for “the health of others”.

          1. Ben,
            The only ones lying are those like you who shout the “All Clear.”

            1. No human at any time has ever been “all clear”. Risks are always and everywhere and have to be experienced by all.

              The objection is to innumerate fearmongering tyrants who are oblivious to the suffering they yearn to impose on others.

  10. Vaccine passports are inevitable for international travel, especially for 3rd world countries where vaccines are not available or they are using less effective vaccines.

    But there is no need to use them domestically.

    1. If I need a paper certification for international travel, I’ll get one.
      If not, I won’t

      1. Problem is when they were requiring covid tests 72 hours before departure on international flights people were forging them, so they came up with an electronic verification system.

        Who are we kidding anyway? The airlines and immigration officials will scan a paper copy and it will be shared with other governments and be part of your Permanent immigration record, no matter how short your trip.

        1. Hence any ID would need a head photo & the same anti-forging features as currency and similar penalties for forgeries.

  11. To the “pro-vaccine passport” group. Something to consider for you all.

    Right now, you don’t need an ID of any kind to attend a rally, go to a theater, go to church, or eat at a restaurant. You just go.

    However, under the “vaccine passport” concept, you need to show an ID with a vaccine passport to do any of these things. Because it is a compelling government interest, presumably.

    Well, if you’re showing an ID anyway for these things, what about other compelling government interests? Perhaps…border control. So, as a simple second field on that “vaccine ID” card, it has “US citizen” or “Green Card” or “valid visa until xx/xx/xxxx”.

    So, to do any of these things, you need to show that vaccine ID card, as well as proof that you are legally in the country.

    Sound good?

    1. Not really, Armchair. It sounds like a bullshit attempt to thwart public health policy.

      1. Yea, there is a much easier way to check for compliance. Those who did not take the DNA altering vaccines should be mandated to wear a yellow “non-vax” star on their lapel. Failure to provide documentation of vaccination upon the “papiere bitte” request of the police would result in severe consequences. However, since we don’t have enough prison space, we should build special camps for the noncompliant. The most efficient way to transport these non-compliant types will be boxcars to said camps.

      2. So, “public health policy” is a good reason to strip away our liberties, but “National security and border control” isn’t…

        1. Idk about you, but no, I dont think national security is a good reason to restrict liberty. Fuck the TSA.

          And I fail to see how border control affects your liberty specifically. It affects that of immigrants, which is a different issue.

          1. But you think “public health policy” is a good reason to institute these types of “passports”….

            Here’s the issue. Once you introduce them for “public health policy” and institute people making “checks” of your ID for “public health,” it’s really easy to add on “National Security” concerns to it. The ID’s already exist. And you’ve instituted a policy of requiring “checks” of people’s ID’s on a regular basis for almost every single every day activity.

          2. AC,
            Border control impacts your security in that you give up almost all of your 4th A protections when you are entering the country. CPB agents can confiscate your computer, search it all they’d like all with no probable cause of any cause whatsoever.

      3. Stephen,
        If you need a traceable ID to do nearly anything that involves others. Why not that same ID as the requirement for voting?

        1. I need a traceable ID to do practically nothing that involves others. Do you live in China, by any chance?

          1. Fortunately not.
            But if you’ve read my comments above, you would not have asked such a stupid question.

            1. I had dinner at Olive Garden Wednesday. Not only didn’t I have to show photo ID, I didn’t have to wear a damned mask, either.

              1. And you have poor taste in restaurants.
                But that is a topic for another thread

        2. If you need a traceable ID to do nearly anything that involves others. Why not that same ID as the requirement for voting?

          Don Nico, I don’t think it is a question which can be answered on principle, without reference to context. Voter suppression is a big subject, and an unavoidable one if you want to unpack that question. I am not going to unpack it in this answer.

          But to take a stab at one principled piece of the answer, voting is not, in principle, “anything that involves others.” It is in principle a uniquely empowered act by a member of the nation’s joint sovereignty, acting at personal pleasure, to exercise constitutive power over government.

          On principle, it stands to reason that government ought not be empowered to obstruct that sovereign exercise. On the contrary, the duties of government are to guard jealously its sovereign’s power, to convenience exercise of that power, and insofar as possible to stay out of the way of an election. If officials of the government do otherwise, and attempt to use government power to influence election outcomes, they do so in violation of the principles of American constitutionalism.

      4. How are these passports not racists? We all have been lectured that BIPOC are incapable of getting simple IDs to vote, now they need something to go anywhere and do anything?

      5. No, I think it’s needed to institute a public health policy. A vaccine passport needs a verified system of identification to insure the vaccine record belongs to the person presenting it. Positive ID, and cross-check with an electronic record, and a history of everywhere you have visited or traveled is necessary for contact tracing too.

  12. A flip side of the approach urged by the article is that it will quickly undermine ability to require masking and social distancing in places where those practices may remain necessary. So long as a notable fraction of the population remains unvaccinated—or even resists vaccination—public health policy will be too much burdened if the only way to determine who must be masked, and who need not be, is to demand papers, case by case.

    So long as Covid-19 cases remain commonplace, and a substantial fraction of the population goes unvaccinated, mandatory masking, social distancing, and other practices will be needed in more-dangerous venues. And to make that policy workable, it will be necessary to apply it alike to vaccinated people along with the others. Fully immunized people who dislike such requirements can postpone attending such venues until effective virus suppression moots the issue.

    Like it or not, suppression of pandemic disease will always be a collective effort, in which cooperation of all people must occur, either voluntarily or by compulsion. An impulse toward heedless resistance explains why so many libertarians become willy-nilly opponents of public health policy in general. Which is folly.

    Full immunity from vaccination will materially ease life for those who acquire it, even if they sometimes must wear masks indoors until virus levels decline to near-zero. A week hence, that will include me.

    After more than year without stepping foot in stores of any kind, I am looking forward to putting on a brand new N-95 mask and going where I please. No more getting my groceries from teenagers with no better shopping experience than takeout to guide their choices. That will be a big improvement.

    I plan to ditch the mask entirely outdoors, another improvement. With luck and widespread cooperation, this ordeal will soon subside. But fight the need for cooperation, and inconveniences will be prolonged, and felt more keenly by non-cooperators than by the others.

    1. Once everybody has had the chance to be vaccinated, the only people at risk are the people volunteering to be at risk. So, no, none of that police state garbage will be needed.

      1. Just change that a little, and you will be fine Brett. Once Covid-19 has become extremely rare, we can do as we please, and return to customary liberties.

        Keep in mind, folks who resist public health policy will postpone the time when that happens, maybe for a very long time. Maybe tailor your politics to fit that reality.

        1. “Once Covid-19 has become extremely rare, we can do as we please, and return to customary liberties.”

          Oh, that’s very funny. And I suppose once terrorists stop hijacking planes to crash into buildings, we can shut the TSA down, too, and get back to just walking onto the damn plane again.

          You know quite well that, short of something approaching a revolution, things like this are forever.

          1. No, Brett. There may be no such thing as progress, but change is continuous.

            Spanish Flu was deadly, then less so. It’s still around, but in mutated forms that do harm at such tolerable levels that no one thinks of it as an emergency. At some point, Covid-19 will do something similar.

            What folks do with regard to public health has a lot do with when that happens. Keep fighting masking, distancing, and closures in response to outbreaks, then throw in vaccine resistance, and you can postpone getting back to normal for a long time.

            1. “There may be no such thing as progress, but change is continuous.”

              And in the current environment, we only change in the direction of further police state measures. So it’s insane to agree to any new ones.

              Once there’s evidence that police state measures can be rolled back as well as forward, I might change my mind about so-called ‘temporary’ measures.

        2. Stephen,
          To be fair, it is unlikely that it becomes extremely rare. It is the goal of public health policy to get Ro well below 1.0. That would be sufficient to say that the pig-headed can take their chances.

    2. “Full immunity from vaccination ”
      We have no reason to believe that such an extrapolation of present protection by vaccine will ever reach that level.
      What we can hope for is sufficiently wide spread resistance to the disease, will get clusters of infection to spread broadly through the population.
      Then those who don’t want vaccine can retain their liberty to get sick.

      1. As I’ve related before, “full” immunity isn’t a thing. “Immunity” is nothing more than a fast enough response to a disease to knock it down before it’s severe enough to be a bother.

  13. What is the “least restrictive means” of achieving the compelling interest of establishing government and corporate control over the citizenry akin to the control a farmer has over a herd of cattle?

    Whatever it is, I suppose it will be constitutionally mandatory.

    1. Something something commerce clause, something something, police power, something something living constitution.

      There, I just gave you all the constitutional justification a typical liberal requires.

    2. The founders couldn’t have envisioned deadly diseases Covid when they wrote their document.

      1. They had epidemics during the founding era that make covid seem tame. Smallpox, cholera, polio, etc.

        Makes me wonder why no one ever proposed such draconian public health measures during the AIDS epidemic.

  14. Voluntary compliance with the DNA altering vaccine will top out around 30-40%.

    What I’d like to know, is that these things are “experimental” and don’t have the normal FDA approval process for them, which usually takes 10-15 years. It took that long, for example, for the HPV vaccine. Could the FDA just wave a magic wand to make them approved and not experimental, by passing the normal process?

    Since federal law prohibits giving members of the military experimental medical treatments (a law that has a long history as for why it was needed), some 40% of the military is declining the shots. You don’t have that option for other shots, I can attest to personally, (though I didn’t need the Smallpox vaccine, I willingly complied). Can the FDA approve the things as non-experimental?

    1. Hold up, folks! We have a fellow on a libertarian magazine defend the FDA! Stone him!

      Honestly though, seeing so called conservatives and libertarians suddenly be like, but, but, we must obey the FDA! Is somewhat hilarious. And sad. The FDA is one of the most useless organizations ever and I’ve had enough flak from liberals for advocating its abolition or restriction. I’ve remained consistent on this issue. Appears no one else has.

      1. Hold up, folks! We have a liberal here who is defending big pharma!

        Honestly though, seeing so called liberals suddenly be like, but, but, we must trust big pharma is somewhat hilarious. Especially when so many liberals are now for alternating their RNA but not in the food they eat. Sad.

        1. Not me, I worked for big pharma. I’ll defend them any day of the week.

          Except when they do bullshit things with exclusivity, that’s dumb. But thats informed by libertarian principles.

    2. Kind of ridiculous to think the Pfizer or Moderna virus can alter DNA when it doesn’t contain DNA.

  15. I’m old enough to remember when liberals raged against states having the ability to check the immigration status of those who the police interact with. They went to court, and stopped it.

    Yes, Obama said that America was the type of country where you didn’t have to have all your papers on you to go out and get ice cream. Would Obama want you to have your vax papers in order to go get an ice cream if he was in office today?

  16. Can we defer this conversation until the vaccines have been fully approved by the FDA on a NON-emergency basis?
    You know, actual scientific studies on the long term effects and all that jazz?
    Remember, all NO COVID vaccines are approved by the FDA under the real actual proven protocols.

    1. The above comment is the wisest thing that was said on this FUBAR comment thread thus far.

    2. God, no! By then people might have calmed down enough to think things through, and say no.

      You want to push things like this through, you need to do it while people are still panicking.

    3. “Can we defer this conversation until the vaccines have been fully approved by the FDA on a NON-emergency basis?”

      No

  17. Of course, those who have tested positive for CoViD-19 (and therefore have natural immunity) can’t get a vaccine under current emergency authorization and therefore can’t get a vaccine passport. What do these law-abiding and wholly unthreatening people do?

    Again, are we at a point where test results and protected health information are public information?

    1. No, I’ve had Covid and I could get it if I wanted. We’re currently at the point where anybody 16 and above can get it.

      I’ve decided to pass on it given the number of people in my office who’ve had fairly severe reactions, the the point of being out of work for a couple days. Since I’m already immune, taking it would have been just a minor precaution, not worth risking a severe reaction over.

      1. “Since I’m already immune, ”
        Wow, you are cock-sure of yourself, even though disease derived resistance is seen to decay faster than mRNA derived resistance.

  18. “can’t get a vaccine under current emergency authorization and therefore can’t get a vaccine passport.”

    False.
    My 98-year old mom got covid-19 and has had her two Pfizer shots.

  19. I don’t think strict scrutiny is really being applied, despite the claims of some judges.

  20. I think a vaccine passport is a bad idea, and misapprehends how heard immunity works.
    But I also think a lot of this ‘COVID will be forever because our elites secretly love it! And also the science we are following is wrong – here’s the REAL science!!’ are dumbasses.

    1. Sarcastr0, I’m all ears about heard immunity. But seriously, what do you think happens with herd immunity which everyone misapprehends? I don’t want to get ambushed by my own ignorance.

      1. Herd immunity does not protect the vaccinated, it protects those who are not vaccinated.

        Policies that separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated throw that advantage away.

    2. Finger-pointing is central to the identity of some

      1. Pointing left and yelling at what your mind conjures is all you do!

Please to post comments