Vaccine Passports

[MUfan12]

Curious to hear what people think about this. https://www.axios.com/covid-vaccine-passport-companies-private-biden-930dae66-8c70-48c2-a3dd-fea6ab4a155b.html

Personally, I'm against this, and am stunned that a Democratic administration hasn't thought about the inequities this will perpetuate.

[Galway Eagle]

Im for it from a "this is our way through the pandemic" POV. I'm against it for the issues it will bring to the surface.

[GooooMarquette]

Ordinarily I would be totally against something like this, precisely because it highlights socioeconomic inequities.

But this is not an ordinary time, and if we want to get back to some semblance of ordinary, an extraordinary step like this might be appropriate. If we get up to 80% vaccinated (including kids), I would say otherwise, but it will be a long time before we get anywhere close to that.

[MUfan12]

Ordinarily I would be totally against something like this, precisely because it highlights socioeconomic inequities.

But this is not an ordinary time, and if we want to get back to some semblance of ordinary, an extraordinary step like this might be appropriate. If we get up to 80% vaccinated (including kids), I would say otherwise, but it will be a long time before we get anywhere close to that.

I guess for me it depends on the usage. Travel? Sure. Even large events I could see. Anything beyond that I think gets dicey.

[tower912]

If I wanted to travel internationally, I could see the benefit.    Other than that, meh.    Wait until enough are vaccinated and all go together.   

[injuryBug]

If I wanted to travel internationally, I could see the benefit.    Other than that, meh.    Wait until enough are vaccinated and all go together.

What is enough?  70% is the number i hear.  What if 35% are against the vaccine is the past year the new normal.  At some point we need to move on with or without this passport.  If you do not want to get vaccinated that is your choice but it should not stop the rest of us from getting back to normal

[GooooMarquette]

If I wanted to travel internationally, I could see the benefit.    Other than that, meh.    Wait until enough are vaccinated and all go together.

But epidemiologists think 'enough' is somewhere in the 70-80% range. Are you willing to wait for that before things open up again? And remember - that's 70-80% of the entire population, including kids. That means we might not get to your 'enough are vaccinated' point for another year or more.

[tower912]

Yes.  I acknowledge all of these things.   Get a vaccine for kids ok'd and start getting needles in arms.

I have had it and have two shots on board.  I am traveling for spring break but will not do anything touristy.  And what I do, I will do masked.    I have my card with proof of two shots in my wallet.   

Finish the job.

[Hards Alumni]

Yes.  I acknowledge all of these things.   Get a vaccine for kids ok'd and start getting needles in arms.

I have had it and have two shots on board.  I am traveling for spring break but will not do anything touristy.  And what I do, I will do masked.    I have my card with proof of two shots in my wallet.   

Finish the job.

Hopefully you laminated it!

[tower912]

I made my point poorly.   I think it is more important to abide by the restrictions (masks, capacity limits) while working to vaccinate everyone, than it is to create a get out of jail free card to wave around and ignore the restrictions.
   However, if I needed to travel internationally and some kind of addition to an existing passport was required to show you had both shots, I can see the logic of that.

[Skatastrophy]

As a frequent international traveler, I already have my Yellow Card. AKA the "Carte Jaune" book, approved by the WHO and CDC. I had the pharmacist that administered our vaccine fill my first dose out there.

This vaccine passport should be a global thing, we're not the only country talking about this.

[jficke13]

Good.

Every time I see some breathless pearl clutching headline meant to inspire a hysterical reaction about overreach (Rutgers will only allow vaccinated students on campus! Vaccine passports!), my reaction is always: Good.

There was no opting out of the smallpox vaccine, there should be no opting out of this one. But, since we have people too selfish and stupid to get the vaccine, then I'm all for there being social consequences that fall on those who opt out. No shot? No seat in the Fiserv for you. Come back after deciding you want to participate in society.

[pacearrow02]

Good.

Every time I see some breathless pearl clutching headline meant to inspire a hysterical reaction about overreach (Rutgers will only allow vaccinated students on campus! Vaccine passports!), my reaction is always: Good.

There was no opting out of the smallpox vaccine, there should be no opting out of this one. But, since we have people too selfish and stupid to get the vaccine, then I'm all for there being social consequences that fall on those who opt out. No shot? No seat in the Fiserv for you. Come back after deciding you want to participate in society.

If a business (FF) wants to put that rule in place that’s fine imo.  I don’t like the gov’t mandating/requiring this.

[Jockey]

Good.

Every time I see some breathless pearl clutching headline meant to inspire a hysterical reaction about overreach (Rutgers will only allow vaccinated students on campus! Vaccine passports!), my reaction is always: Good.

There was no opting out of the smallpox vaccine, there should be no opting out of this one. But, since we have people too selfish and stupid to get the vaccine, then I'm all for there being social consequences that fall on those who opt out. No shot? No seat in the Fiserv for you. Come back after deciding you want to participate in society.

Well said.

[GooooMarquette]

Good.

Every time I see some breathless pearl clutching headline meant to inspire a hysterical reaction about overreach (Rutgers will only allow vaccinated students on campus! Vaccine passports!), my reaction is always: Good.

There was no opting out of the smallpox vaccine, there should be no opting out of this one. But, since we have people too selfish and stupid to get the vaccine, then I'm all for there being social consequences that fall on those who opt out. No shot? No seat in the Fiserv for you. Come back after deciding you want to participate in society.

Bingo!

[jficke13]

If a business (FF) wants to put that rule in place that’s fine imo.  I don’t like the gov’t mandating/requiring this.

Honest question because I was not around for it when it did happen: How were smallpox vaccines mandated? I'm pretty sure they were administered through schools, but I'd have to assume it was under the auspices of a mandate by someone with authority to issue a mandate? Genuinely curious here and not trying to be argumentative.

Also, to the extent that people don't want the government issuing lots of invasive mandates, I hear you and think that's a decent concern. I also think that they are uniquely suited to organize and implement some kind of record (perhaps a passport of sorts) that would be uniformly accepted so that private businesses like the FF can effectively make the choice about how to treat unvaccinated customers. In that case it has a lot less to do with the government forcing people to get vaccine, as it does with government providing the means by which everyone else can organize their responses to people who choose not to get the vaccine.

[jsglow]

Good.

Every time I see some breathless pearl clutching headline meant to inspire a hysterical reaction about overreach (Rutgers will only allow vaccinated students on campus! Vaccine passports!), my reaction is always: Good.

There was no opting out of the smallpox vaccine, there should be no opting out of this one. But, since we have people too selfish and stupid to get the vaccine, then I'm all for there being social consequences that fall on those who opt out. No shot? No seat in the Fiserv for you. Come back after deciding you want to participate in society.

Word.

[MUfan12]

Good.

Every time I see some breathless pearl clutching headline meant to inspire a hysterical reaction about overreach (Rutgers will only allow vaccinated students on campus! Vaccine passports!), my reaction is always: Good.

There was no opting out of the smallpox vaccine, there should be no opting out of this one. But, since we have people too selfish and stupid to get the vaccine, then I'm all for there being social consequences that fall on those who opt out. No shot? No seat in the Fiserv for you. Come back after deciding you want to participate in society.

In some cases, sure. There are some people who are willingly ignorant, peddling misinformation, and are acting selfishly.

I worry about the black community in particular, the polling shows they're very hesitant to get it. And historically speaking, I can totally see the reasoning for distrust. Does this type of coercion help, or just create more separation? I think those are the things that need to be figured out before deciding how/where this gets implemented.

[GooooMarquette]

Honest question because I was not around for it when it did happen: How were smallpox vaccines mandated? I'm pretty sure they were administered through schools, but I'd have to assume it was under the auspices of a mandate by someone with authority to issue a mandate? Genuinely curious here and not trying to be argumentative.

They were mandated by individual state laws. Not sure if it was all 50 states, but I think it was. The right of states to do so was upheld by SCOTUS in 1902 (Jacobson v Massachusetts). The decision was based on a balancing between public health and individual rights, and the court determined that a global pandemic was a reasonable situation in which the state could require vaccines. There were limited exceptions for medical reasons.

The mandatory vaccinations were stopped in 1972, in large part because the federal government declared that  smallpox had essentially been eradicated.

[warriorchick]

They were mandated by individual state laws. Not sure if it was all 50 states, but I think it was. The right of states to do so was upheld by SCOTUS in 1902 (Jacobson v Massachusetts). The decision was based on a balancing between public health and individual rights, and the court determined that a global pandemic was a reasonable situation in which the state could require vaccines. There were limited exceptions for medical reasons.

The mandatory vaccinations were stopped in 1972, in large part because the federal government declared that  smallpox had essentially been eradicated.

All sorts of vaccinations are required to attend public school (MMR, DPT, etc.)  It's been watered down in a lot of states (it went from "religious exceptions" to "personal beliefs"), but anyone thinking that mandatory vaccinations are unprecedented doesn't know their history.

[GooooMarquette]

All sorts of vaccinations are required to attend public school (MMR, DPT, etc.)  It's been watered down in a lot of states (it went from "religious exceptions" to "personal beliefs"), but anyone thinking that mandatory vaccinations are unprecedented doesn't know their history.

Totally agree. Makes it all the more maddening that there would be opposition to mandating this particular vaccine during the worst pandemic in over a century.

[warriorchick]

Totally agree. Makes it all the more maddening that there would be opposition to mandating this particular vaccine during the worst pandemic in over a century.

I even had someone try to tell me that requiring proof of vaccination for anything would violate HIPAA.  Nice try.

[GooooMarquette]

I even had someone try to tell me that requiring proof of vaccination for anything would violate HIPAA.  Nice try.

Ugh. HIPAA has become the 21st century excuse to try to get out of nearly anything.

Can’t wait until someone tries to argue that requiring them to file their income taxes violates HIPAA, because the forms ask questions about deductions for healthcare expenses. 😂

[BrewCity83]

Totally agree. Makes it all the more maddening that there would be opposition to mandating this particular vaccine during the worst pandemic in over a century.

I think the current opposition is rooted in a general mistrust in our government more than anything.  If the general public trusted the government (including Fauci and the CDC) there would be little opposition at all to a COVID vaccine.  In fact, there'd be a mad rush to get jabbed.   

[warriorchick]

I think the current opposition is rooted in a general mistrust in our government more than anything.  If the general public trusted the government (including Fauci and the CDC) there would be little opposition at all to a COVID vaccine.  In fact, there'd be a mad rush to get jabbed.

I think it's fair to say that at any point in time, about 50% of Americans mistrust the government.