Well, the only other option is compulsory vaccination, which would need to be done “at gunpoint”.
No need for guns, legal precedent exists already.
Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, 1905. The Supreme Court opined that “It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health”.
The Court also stated in a still-valid writing that “The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint” which I bet will come as a surprise to many libertarians.
LeSving wrote:
Well, there is literally no difference whatsoever in principle.
I suggest you read your history books.
The Covid Certificate is something people get because they have done something out of their free will.
On the other hand, the Nazis forced that star onto people on the grounds of racism.
As for the rest, @Malibuflyer was faster. Not much more to be said.
Peter wrote:
I agree 100% but a) it has taken a long time for policymakers to see this
In fairness to the policymakers, it’s taken a long time to get to the point where everyone over 18 has been offered a vaccine.
There was a long time in the UK (and still currently in most EU countries) when many people had to wait their turn in the queue. They might have wanted the vaccine, but didn’t have access to it. I only agreed with the UK policy, once that point was reached.
Peter wrote:
If somebody doesn’t give a toss about their health (true for a large % of people, in every country… anybody doubting that just needs to walk down the street) then what can be done?
Same as with all the other things where stupid people “don’t give a toss”.
If you do not realize that driving 150mph through a city is not the best thing you could do for your health, society says “so let’s restrict your freedom to drive as fast as you want in this situation to at least protect others”.
If you don’t realize that flying 100ft above the city center is not the best thing you could do for your health, society says “so let’s establish a minimum altitude above cities so that at least your crash doesn’t kill others”
If you don’t realize that vaccination is the best thing you could do for your health, society says “so let’s keep him away from others so that at least he doesn’t kill others”
It’s just the application of a proven recipe to protect our society.
I just got back from a 1000 mile motorcycle trip in the US, four nights in hotels, attendance at an event and all meals out. I’m happy to say that I noted no meaningful Covid related restrictions in place anywhere, at any time on the trip. There was in some areas a published requirement that unvaccinated people wear masks in indoor public places, but apparently 100% of the population is vaccinated 
Otherwise the totalitarian nonsense has slipped into the past, where it should be.
Malibuflyer wrote:
It’s just the application of a proven recipe to protect our society.
Well, in the end it is the balance between safety and overregulation which is sometimes difficult to achieve but other than this, it’s exactly how it works.
One should be careful to mention if a regulation has to do with self-protection or protection of others or both. The latter two have precedence over the first, where self-protetion depends on self-discipline or Darwin.
Most Covid regulation are of the type which protect others first and one self later. Hence observance collides with egoism with a often resounding grumble.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
One should be careful to mention if a regulation has to do with self-protection or protection of others or both.
In countries that have – as ours; even the US – some social security and/or healthcare system, you can not completely separate “self protection” from “protection of others”. If 5% of the young population will be impaired to earn their living, cause excessive healthcare costs and can not contribute to the cost of the elderly (pensions, healthcare, etc.), we have a massive and long term problem for all of us – even if they do not directly kill people by infecting them.
Malibuflyer wrote:
There is a tremendous difference in principle (and in reality):
No, it’s not. It’s the same sh*t, different wrapping, which is what all your points are about. The worlds has moved on since 100 years ago. What people then saw as 100% real tangible threat, has later changed character and become unfounded anxiety based un prejudice, ignorance and ill fated group thinking. The reasons don’t matter, it’s the act of depriving large groups of people from their basic rights that is the wrong-doing here. It’s an (ill fated) act of totalitarianism without precedence in Europe since WW II.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Someone I used to respect has compared it to the Jew Star of the Nazis…. how insane is that.
LeSving wrote:
Well, there is literally no difference whatsoever in principle.
Malibuflyer wrote:
There is a tremendous difference in principle (and in reality):
LeSving wrote:
No, it’s not. It’s the same sh*t, different wrapping, which is what all your points are about.
Guys. We’re getting dangerously close to making Goodwin’s law come true in this discussion. Let’s not go that way.
IMHO the truth is somewhere in between.
WW2 galvanised the UK – because it has not been invaded since 1066 which almost nobody then alive could remember. So Churchill & Co got a pretty free run. He still got summarily chucked out right after WW2.
And same for the rest of “then free” Europe.
It was a real crisis.
Today the world is different. We have social media, which many people live on entirely. This has changed the dynamics of “civil obedience” completely. What has not changed is that this will either make or terminate the career of any politician associated with it (more likely the latter, and that’s even without ‘doing a Hancock’) so everybody is looking over their shoulder, and avoiding doing really controversial stuff.
