You can do more than one quote in one post by opening the answer selecting the thing you want to quote and press quote while you are typing on your answer, that will make the thing you want to quote in your post.
Sure. A doctor does not need your medical history for a treatment. However knowing as much as possible at the beginning can save your life. However this is of cause not the main argument of the immunization passport.
I don’t get the argument here. You would be ok with an immunization passport that would be payed by companies instead of the government? I thought your problem is the pass port per se and not that it costs money.
I politely ask you to read my post completely and not only jump to the phrase to respond what you thought you understood. I wrote that there is/was the ethical discussion which came to the result that the government will not discriminate based on who received the vaccination nor that vaccination is mandatory…
So as you write the only discrimination happens at what you write “health club” which from what I see may probably be the holiday resort . The question if the tax payer should pay for it is a different question. I don’t want the health data of my country in shady apps with trackers and stuff. The amount of money is insignificant and provides a higher quality due to open source and data protection which also helps to set an example for future health care projects.
You might even get it cheaper in your country as you can simply get the source from the project in Germany
You don’t need this passport for the doctor to know your vaccinated. You can tell them.
I’m not really against private companies doing things within the laws, but I don’t think governments should pay or enforce these passports.
If the state will not discriminate based on these passports, why should they pay for them or use them? And how can you be so sure? I think that some countries have already given back freedom of assembly to vaccinated people. I’ve heard that about Israel for instance.
Just the fact that it’s called “immunization passport” makes everyone think about it as a token that will let you move freely. I’m certainly against only letting vaccinated people use their constitutional rights.
I totally agree! The naming is misleading and raises expectations. I guess the official name should be like in the yellow booklet kind of “vaccination certification”.
Stupid idea
Gamify it and call it achievement
And regarding constitutional rights I can also not agree more. The pandemic tried our constitution and some (local) governments stretched things too far regarding cutting constitutional rights disproportionately, why things also landed at courts and had to be corrected later.
There is also a name discussion that there is no such thing as a “privilege” (e.g. for vaccinated people) when talking about constitutional rights. Cutting those in general has to have the highest exceptional justification which has to be regularly checked. Granting them on the other hand by this is no privilege but a matter of course.
As soon as my doctor will be the authority to issue an immunization passport (perform here related immunization as qualified personnel) to myself I might understand that he/she will be the only one to get access to it and write necessary data into the immunization database (App). Until then, my doctor will at least get restricted (only) read-only access to confirm with which vaccine I’m actually immunized (if so and when). In short, immunization passport will be part of my medical record (if I’m getting current pandemic situation right).
We do split society into pieces all the time already though, and take away rights from parts of the population by law or by practice of the government. A couple examples: drinking age, driving license, having a car, residency, citizenship, health insurance, having a phone, having a bank account, being vaccinated, speaking the official language, serving a jail sentence.
I’m sure most of us consider at least some of those reasonable because they exchange freedom for some greater good in society. Mandatory vaccination has long precedent. Would that many people want to abolish driving licenses just because they feel people’s freedom is more important than safety?
I think vaccine passports are a kind of driver’s license for not spreading disease and should be analyzed as such.
There’s no precedent for mandatory vaccination for such a mild disease though, especially not using vaccines that have been in development for less than a year.
The few vaccines that schools (to give an example) require have decades of research backing them, had years of testing verifying their safety when they were introduced to the general population, and protect against diseases that have debilitating effects on the infected. With the coronavirus, you have… mild, flu-like symptoms for a week? Or no symptoms at all? Sure, in less than 1% of cases the effects are severe and can even result in death, but the same can be said for many other diseases, as well as the vaccine itself (source).
Even for the few vaccines required under specific conditions, there has never been a precedent for a “passport” to allow the public to go about their daily lives.
I’m sorry but this statement is really freaking me out
you are missing a huge detail here, vaccine or not, you have an immune system
The vaccine is suppose to safely (sadely not for everyone) trigger a response from your immune system
If you think a ‘not spreading disease’ license should be analyzed, then it should not be about some one-fit-for-all vaccines with no responsabilities from the providers, but about the quality of your immune system
Your immune system is the best key to counter diseases, not regular nor RNA-base vaccines
Medication is also a good solution to counter diseases, especially if your immune system is too weak
I think medical personnel (regardless of what they are treating) will disagree with many statements here. They will also disagree with many statements of the medical personnel itself.
Ebola is far more stronger and the letality is far more higher, and far less contagious than Covid-19 and has nothing to do with the wanted passport here
With a letality around 40%, yes, a vaccine is much more appropriate to train you immune sytem against Ebola, but Covid-19 is a weak virus with a lethality much lower than 1%
@dcz, respectfully, those are all privileges you’ve cited. Rights come from God–however you might see that. The concept of rights arose in the west primarily from Judeo-christian, dignity based society and the common law (mosaic law); that we’re all born with natural rights. Perhaps the most important concept herein is that of property rights. Your right to your own body is rooted in property rights.
This is why the idea of compulsory vaccination is anathema to human rights–that is unless one has mistaken rights for privileges.
Privileges, arise from civil contracts (agreements). These are constructs of the Roman civil law and admiralty–the origins of which go so far back into the mists of time that nobody knows where it came from.
Within these systems, the individual, having signed on (signed away their natural rights), is no longer operating as a natural person. Rather they’ve become an incorporated entity. In consideration of this, they’re granted any number of granular privileges (prevailed by a provider).
This quickly turns into almost everything we’re facing today. In fact, it’s central to the conversation we’re having right now, whether people see it or not.
Is being a free person a privilege (not being in jail)? Then being able to move freely (passport of any kind) is a privilege. You might consider that a privilege, but I consider that view extremely oppressive.
Funny that you mention that. I am reading Arendt’s “Origins of totalitatianism” right now, and it’s fresh in my memory that sometime around the rise of nation states, the West switched from seeing law as stemming from the divine to seeing them as coming from the people themselves. Side note: this had bad consequences for human rights, because they had lost protection against human intervention. They ended up being rooted in natural rights “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As it’s being widely ignored worldwide, it confirms that world doesn’t follow divine or natural law.
Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) did not deny that the natural law ought to be the basis for relations between sovereign states. He did, however, stress that the ius gentium (natural law) – like all positive law – was the result of human will.
By the eighteenth century, concepts of the ius gentium as the common law of humanity, or customs shared by almost all peoples, or that aspect of positive law immediately deduced from the first principles of natural law had been largely marginalized.
Whereas I agree with you that mandatory vaccinations are at least legally and morally questionable, the Nuremberg Code is not relevant here. It is valid for medical experiments and I don’t think an approved vaccination does count as that…
. The question if the tax payer should pay for it is a different question. I don’t want the health data of my country in shady apps with trackers and stuff. The amount of money is insignificant and provides a higher quality due to open source and data protection which also helps to set an example for future health care projects.
