7 ms·

Events like these make the ethics of using vaccine passes (for e.g. entering stores or restaurants) a more interesting question. If the vaccine doesn't signific

Events like these make the ethics of using vaccine passes (for e.g. entering stores or restaurants) a more interesting question. If the vaccine doesn't significantly stop the spread of the disease but does reduce the risk of hospitalization, then the true purpose of vaccine passes seems to be as a device for socially pressuring individuals into taking the vaccine to reduce the burden on the healthcare system, rather than a measure to control the spread of the disease.

cedilla 5y ago
Nothing changed. Of course the aim of vaccination campaigns is to reduce harm. What a bizarre strawman argument. Protecting the health care system was always express goal.
- prohobo 5y ago
  Not even true in the frame you're attempting to talk about it: the vaccines were touted to stop transmission up until August 2021 or so, when people realized they didn't and started backsliding into touting the protection of the healthcare system. Also, what a bizarre sidestep of the actual issue being talked about: vaccine passes.
  - caoilte 5y ago
    Reduce transmission. Nobody serious ever said they would stop transmissions because they were found not to during their testing last year.
    - prohobo 5y ago
      Stop lying. We can't solve any problems if you keep denying reality. - Up until mid-2021 people still thought "transmission was exceptionally rare" in vaccinated individuals: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vaccines-block-most-transmission-of-covid-19 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vacci... - Biden said it would stop transmissions: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-get-covid/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-g... - Fauci said it would stop transmissions: https://web.archive.org/web/20210604093134/https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/90445 https://web.archive.org/web/20210604093134/https://www.medpa... This is late stage narrative from 2021. In 2020 they were still questioning whether "breakthrough infections" were real. The narrative shifts over time, but if you know how to use a search engine you'll see it clear as day.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        Delta and Omicron changed things a bit, didn't they? As you argueing against vacvine mandates, lock downs, vaccine passports and geberal restrictions, what would be your counter proposal? No restrictions and let the Pandemic run its natural course? We all sae how that would look like in Italy, Spain, Brazil, New York...
        refurb 5y ago
        I love how to goal posts keep moving. “Oh, the vaccine would have stop transmission but Delta came along”. Bullshit.
        hef19898 5y ago
        I didn't say that vaccines were supposed to transmission pre-Delta, did I? Just that overall vaccines were, and are, more effective against Alpha and whatnot. And even then it wasn't really expected to stop transmissions to 100%. Still the question remains to be answered: What are our alternatives, assuming we don't want overloaded health systems? Because just doing nothing wpuld be disaster.
      - hugh-avherald 5y ago
        I'm appalled by Biden's careless statement. But I can't find the Fauci quote in that article (likely hampered by pop-ups). I do agree that authorities have been pretty reckless in their promises.
        prohobo 5y ago
        I updated the link to an archived version. Fauci and the CDC were a little more careful, but they insinuated effectively the same thing with vaccination induced herd immunity. Of course, we now know the vaccines do nothing for herd immunity, and it seems only infection actually does anything in this regard. I don't have the time to dig up everything every time I need to make an argument, and I wish there was a proper repository of information for this stuff - and that again, is a failing of the government.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Do you have a source? The big clinical trials all tested risk of hospitalization and risk of death. The original Pfizer and Moderna trials did not test risk of infection or transmission. Participants weren’t even tested unless symptomatic.
  - maeil 5y ago
    The end goal of any measure, including vaccine passes, has always been the same: preventing a large number of deaths. Vacccines still prevent a large number of deaths, both directly (strongly reduced risk of death from Covid) and indirectly (reduced strain on the healthcare system). These hold true even if vaccines only effect outcomes after getting Covid and have zero effect on transmission rates at all, they're not up for discussion. As such there really isn't much of an ethical dillema here. There is plenty of data available on all of these points. Whether someone somewhere incorrectly touted vaccines as stopping transmission at any point isn't worth discussion, it's just another one to add to the list of "uninformed statements made about vaccines" which is billions of lines long at this point.
    - prohobo 5y ago
      If we're being charitable, the end goal of vaccine passes is to "nudge" people into getting the vaccine.
      - usrusr 5y ago
        The goal of vaccine passes is to allow business to open for some that would not be allowed to open for anyone otherwise. The nudge is merely a minor but welcome side-effect.
        tomp 5y ago
        This cannot be true. The same goal could trivially be achieved simply by not forcing the businesses to close in the first place.
        usrusr 5y ago
        That's what you believe, but GP was talking about intent and for that only the thoughts of the people doing all the "intending" count. People that believe that not closing is a good idea are usually not the ones proposing vaccination pass schemes (but some of them might still gladly accept them as a compromise)
  - cedilla 5y ago
    Of course vaccines are about harm reduction. How can that be "not true" in any frame? What is even the logical alternative? Are we trying to reduce the infection count because smaller numbers are aesthetically more pleasing? I'm not sidestepping the issue. There is no difficult ethical dilemma here, and nothing changed with the new variant. If there was a mistake regarding the vaccines, it was to discuss vaccination as optional opposed to the clear ethical obligation that it is. Just like no one is entitled to store unstable explosives in candlelight in a shed next to their neighbour's house.
  - GuB-42 5y ago
    Vaccines did stop transmission before delta. That's why many countries weren't big on vaccine passes, we just needed to get higher than the herd immunity threshold and it was fine, a few antivax wouldn't have changed the equation that much. Now, herd immunity is just a dream, we can't count on the vaccinated to protect the unvaccinated anymore. So, plan B, and as it turns out, the key of plan B is also vaccines, but now we need 100% vaccinated, not 60%, so, vaccine passes. Maybe it will change if we get better treatment, or if the virus mutates to be less lethal to those with no immunity. But for now, get vaccinated or stay at home.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    This is the issue with discussions like this. Arguments about any medical intervention is always about statistics, there are essentially no 100% measures, but you and others always frame this as either or questions that's either completely naive or dishonest. So yes vaccination was also stopping the spread, but nobody thought it would 100% prevent a vaccinated person from getting infected. However it does significantly reduce infection rates and severity of the illness. The hope/assumption was that if sufficient people get vaccinated and the infection rate for vaccinated people drops enough it will stop spreading of covid. AFAIK It's unclear yet if that we haven't stopped the spread is due to insufficient vaccination rates or insufficient drop of infection rates for vaccinated people. This analysis is further complicated by the advent of new variants like omikron.
    - refurb 5y ago
      No, no it doesn’t. Google search the lancet study. It found infection in vaccinated produced similar viral loads as unvaccinated AND easily infected other vaccinated. It might reduce the risk of transmission, but only a negligible amount.
- lancebeet 5y ago
  I'm not arguing it's wrong, just that it's a more difficult ethical question. During the past year, I've seen many ads from the authorities here to get vaccinated to protect others from being infected by you, so I disagree with the notion that preventing the spread wasn't a goal in itself, but I realize that this may be different depending on where you live. I consider myself to have a moral obligation to get vaccinated to reduce my own burden on the health care system, but forcing others to do it is a different story. Surely you must agree that requiring people to take a vaccine just to enter a store is a severe measure that should only be undertaken if it's absolutely necessary?
tchalla 5y ago
> If the vaccine doesn't significantly stop the spread of the disease Multiple studies show that vaccinated people have significantly lower transmission than unvaccinated. > In studies conducted before the emergence of the Delta variant, data from multiple studies in different countries suggested that people vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines who develop COVID-19 generally have a lower viral load than unvaccinated people.(157, 165-169) This observation may indicate reduced transmissibility, as viral load has been identified as a key driver of transmission.(170) Studies from multiple countries found significantly reduced likelihood of transmission to household contacts from people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were previously vaccinated for COVID-19.(171-176) For the Delta variant, early data indicate vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with Delta have similar levels of viral RNA and culturable virus detected, indicating that some vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 may be able to transmit the virus to others.(163, 164, 177-180) However, other studies have shown a more rapid decline in viral RNA and culturable virus in fully vaccinated people (96, 177, 180-182). One study observed that Delta infection in fully vaccinated persons was associated with significantly less transmission to contacts than persons who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated.(181) Together, these studies suggest that vaccinated people who become infected with Delta have potential to be less infectious than infected unvaccinated people. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html#infections-fully-vaccinated https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- headsoup 5y ago
  There's a lot of 'indicates' and 'suggests' and 'potential' there rather than clinical outcomes. Given how the unvaccinated are mostly locked out of things at present, current case trajectories and hospitalisations 'suggest' the overall vaccine outcome is not one that solves the problem in any meaningful way.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Last time I checked, invaccinated patients were vastly over repredented in hospitalization and ICU occupation. No indication, but hard facts. If vaccines prevent serious cases and hospitalization for a large percentage of people, and they do, we would be all good if vaccination rates reach sufficient levels. Until they do, the very limited ICU capacity will be taken up overpropertionally unvaccinated. And we will continue to have problems.
irh 5y ago
Pre-omicron the vaccines were significantly slowing the spread of the disease. Post-omicron boosters are required to reach similar efficacy.
- headsoup 5y ago
  Evidence of that? Adjusting for seasonality most places seem worse this year than last before the Omicron emergence.
  - fsh 5y ago
    Seasonality is just one of many factors that affect the spread of COVID. Blindly comparing the situation now with one year ago really doesn't make any sense. Vaccine efficacy against infection has been measured in a lot of studies, for example [1, 2, 3]. It has also been shown that being vaccinated reduces viral loads after infection, even with the delta variant [4, 5]. There are also a few studies on household transmission [5, 6] that show that transmission between vaccinated individuals is significantly less likely. [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2114228 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2114228 [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 [3] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4 [5] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... [6] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(21)00208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6...
  - beberlei 5y ago
    Last year had the original variant and this year delta. In addition last year most countries already were in lockdown since October while this year lockdowns just started mid December. In addition there are still less hospital space taken by covid patients conpared to last year, although the problem here is also mass resignation of medical staff. How is that not much better on all fronts?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
flohofwoe 5y ago
Taking pressue off the healthcare system was the main goal of all restrictions, this was communicated right from the start at least in Germany. Because what happens when the healthcare system breaks down could be seen in various countries early in the pandemic.
- ssl232 5y ago
  On the last point, have there been any developments in early treatment protocols in Germany?
  - usrusr 5y ago
    Early as in "apparently that person has an infection building up, there's a small risk of it getting very bad, do we get out the rare, expensive early treatment pills full of side effects for this one?" I've heard one tiny statement about that question, it sounded like strong focus on practicality. Like cases already in treatment/observation for unrelated reasons (but likely increased risks). Certainly no "oh, your test pinged positive? Here, have these for five days" anytime soon.
- chronofar 5y ago
  And this is irrational on a country wide scale, though understandable at the beginning. We should, I would think, be much better at modeling by this point factoring in vaccinations and recovery immunity to make predictions about specific municipal healthcare risks and move resources to meet them accordingly. Knee-jerk national restrictions based on accelerating cases seems foolish at this point without stringent data models that predict unacceptable levels of healthcare strain. Maybe such models are put forward in some places, but I haven’t seen it.
usrusr 5y ago
They won't stop spread, that much is true. Vaccine passes are not a device for stopping the virus. They are devices for allowing venues to do business by reducing harmful effects to a point that's considered acceptable. The "pressuring of individuals" is a side effect that many consider positive, but not the reason why they exist.
NoPie 5y ago
Most likely, the reason for vaccine passes is that the authorities believed that they will limit the spread of covid. When it didn't happen they could not backtrack and just continued with vague notions that it will help to improve vaccine uptake.

cedilla 5y ago

Nothing changed. Of course the aim of vaccination campaigns is to reduce harm. What a bizarre strawman argument. Protecting the health care system was always express goal.

prohobo 5y ago
Not even true in the frame you're attempting to talk about it: the vaccines were touted to stop transmission up until August 2021 or so, when people realized they didn't and started backsliding into touting the protection of the healthcare system. Also, what a bizarre sidestep of the actual issue being talked about: vaccine passes.
- caoilte 5y ago
  Reduce transmission. Nobody serious ever said they would stop transmissions because they were found not to during their testing last year.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    Stop lying. We can't solve any problems if you keep denying reality. - Up until mid-2021 people still thought "transmission was exceptionally rare" in vaccinated individuals: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vaccines-block-most-transmission-of-covid-19 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/yes-vacci... - Biden said it would stop transmissions: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-get-covid/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-if-vaccinated-wont-g... - Fauci said it would stop transmissions: https://web.archive.org/web/20210604093134/https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/90445 https://web.archive.org/web/20210604093134/https://www.medpa... This is late stage narrative from 2021. In 2020 they were still questioning whether "breakthrough infections" were real. The narrative shifts over time, but if you know how to use a search engine you'll see it clear as day.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Delta and Omicron changed things a bit, didn't they? As you argueing against vacvine mandates, lock downs, vaccine passports and geberal restrictions, what would be your counter proposal? No restrictions and let the Pandemic run its natural course? We all sae how that would look like in Italy, Spain, Brazil, New York...
      - refurb 5y ago
        I love how to goal posts keep moving. “Oh, the vaccine would have stop transmission but Delta came along”. Bullshit.
        hef19898 5y ago
        I didn't say that vaccines were supposed to transmission pre-Delta, did I? Just that overall vaccines were, and are, more effective against Alpha and whatnot. And even then it wasn't really expected to stop transmissions to 100%. Still the question remains to be answered: What are our alternatives, assuming we don't want overloaded health systems? Because just doing nothing wpuld be disaster.
    - hugh-avherald 5y ago
      I'm appalled by Biden's careless statement. But I can't find the Fauci quote in that article (likely hampered by pop-ups). I do agree that authorities have been pretty reckless in their promises.
      - prohobo 5y ago
        I updated the link to an archived version. Fauci and the CDC were a little more careful, but they insinuated effectively the same thing with vaccination induced herd immunity. Of course, we now know the vaccines do nothing for herd immunity, and it seems only infection actually does anything in this regard. I don't have the time to dig up everything every time I need to make an argument, and I wish there was a proper repository of information for this stuff - and that again, is a failing of the government.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Do you have a source? The big clinical trials all tested risk of hospitalization and risk of death. The original Pfizer and Moderna trials did not test risk of infection or transmission. Participants weren’t even tested unless symptomatic.
- maeil 5y ago
  The end goal of any measure, including vaccine passes, has always been the same: preventing a large number of deaths. Vacccines still prevent a large number of deaths, both directly (strongly reduced risk of death from Covid) and indirectly (reduced strain on the healthcare system). These hold true even if vaccines only effect outcomes after getting Covid and have zero effect on transmission rates at all, they're not up for discussion. As such there really isn't much of an ethical dillema here. There is plenty of data available on all of these points. Whether someone somewhere incorrectly touted vaccines as stopping transmission at any point isn't worth discussion, it's just another one to add to the list of "uninformed statements made about vaccines" which is billions of lines long at this point.
  - prohobo 5y ago
    If we're being charitable, the end goal of vaccine passes is to "nudge" people into getting the vaccine.
    - usrusr 5y ago
      The goal of vaccine passes is to allow business to open for some that would not be allowed to open for anyone otherwise. The nudge is merely a minor but welcome side-effect.
      - tomp 5y ago
        This cannot be true. The same goal could trivially be achieved simply by not forcing the businesses to close in the first place.
        usrusr 5y ago
        That's what you believe, but GP was talking about intent and for that only the thoughts of the people doing all the "intending" count. People that believe that not closing is a good idea are usually not the ones proposing vaccination pass schemes (but some of them might still gladly accept them as a compromise)
- cedilla 5y ago
  Of course vaccines are about harm reduction. How can that be "not true" in any frame? What is even the logical alternative? Are we trying to reduce the infection count because smaller numbers are aesthetically more pleasing? I'm not sidestepping the issue. There is no difficult ethical dilemma here, and nothing changed with the new variant. If there was a mistake regarding the vaccines, it was to discuss vaccination as optional opposed to the clear ethical obligation that it is. Just like no one is entitled to store unstable explosives in candlelight in a shed next to their neighbour's house.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  Vaccines did stop transmission before delta. That's why many countries weren't big on vaccine passes, we just needed to get higher than the herd immunity threshold and it was fine, a few antivax wouldn't have changed the equation that much. Now, herd immunity is just a dream, we can't count on the vaccinated to protect the unvaccinated anymore. So, plan B, and as it turns out, the key of plan B is also vaccines, but now we need 100% vaccinated, not 60%, so, vaccine passes. Maybe it will change if we get better treatment, or if the virus mutates to be less lethal to those with no immunity. But for now, get vaccinated or stay at home.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  This is the issue with discussions like this. Arguments about any medical intervention is always about statistics, there are essentially no 100% measures, but you and others always frame this as either or questions that's either completely naive or dishonest. So yes vaccination was also stopping the spread, but nobody thought it would 100% prevent a vaccinated person from getting infected. However it does significantly reduce infection rates and severity of the illness. The hope/assumption was that if sufficient people get vaccinated and the infection rate for vaccinated people drops enough it will stop spreading of covid. AFAIK It's unclear yet if that we haven't stopped the spread is due to insufficient vaccination rates or insufficient drop of infection rates for vaccinated people. This analysis is further complicated by the advent of new variants like omikron.
  - refurb 5y ago
    No, no it doesn’t. Google search the lancet study. It found infection in vaccinated produced similar viral loads as unvaccinated AND easily infected other vaccinated. It might reduce the risk of transmission, but only a negligible amount.
lancebeet 5y ago
I'm not arguing it's wrong, just that it's a more difficult ethical question. During the past year, I've seen many ads from the authorities here to get vaccinated to protect others from being infected by you, so I disagree with the notion that preventing the spread wasn't a goal in itself, but I realize that this may be different depending on where you live. I consider myself to have a moral obligation to get vaccinated to reduce my own burden on the health care system, but forcing others to do it is a different story. Surely you must agree that requiring people to take a vaccine just to enter a store is a severe measure that should only be undertaken if it's absolutely necessary?

tchalla 5y ago

> If the vaccine doesn't significantly stop the spread of the disease Multiple studies show that vaccinated people have significantly lower transmission than unvaccinated. > In studies conducted before the emergence of the Delta variant, data from multiple studies in different countries suggested that people vaccinated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines who develop COVID-19 generally have a lower viral load than unvaccinated people.(157, 165-169) This observation may indicate reduced transmissibility, as viral load has been identified as a key driver of transmission.(170) Studies from multiple countries found significantly reduced likelihood of transmission to household contacts from people infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were previously vaccinated for COVID-19.(171-176) For the Delta variant, early data indicate vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with Delta have similar levels of viral RNA and culturable virus detected, indicating that some vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 may be able to transmit the virus to others.(163, 164, 177-180) However, other studies have shown a more rapid decline in viral RNA and culturable virus in fully vaccinated people (96, 177, 180-182). One study observed that Delta infection in fully vaccinated persons was associated with significantly less transmission to contacts than persons who were unvaccinated or partially vaccinated.(181) Together, these studies suggest that vaccinated people who become infected with Delta have potential to be less infectious than infected unvaccinated people. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html#infections-fully-vaccinated https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
headsoup 5y ago
There's a lot of 'indicates' and 'suggests' and 'potential' there rather than clinical outcomes. Given how the unvaccinated are mostly locked out of things at present, current case trajectories and hospitalisations 'suggest' the overall vaccine outcome is not one that solves the problem in any meaningful way.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Last time I checked, invaccinated patients were vastly over repredented in hospitalization and ICU occupation. No indication, but hard facts. If vaccines prevent serious cases and hospitalization for a large percentage of people, and they do, we would be all good if vaccination rates reach sufficient levels. Until they do, the very limited ICU capacity will be taken up overpropertionally unvaccinated. And we will continue to have problems.

irh 5y ago

Pre-omicron the vaccines were significantly slowing the spread of the disease. Post-omicron boosters are required to reach similar efficacy.

headsoup 5y ago
Evidence of that? Adjusting for seasonality most places seem worse this year than last before the Omicron emergence.
- fsh 5y ago
  Seasonality is just one of many factors that affect the spread of COVID. Blindly comparing the situation now with one year ago really doesn't make any sense. Vaccine efficacy against infection has been measured in a lot of studies, for example [1, 2, 3]. It has also been shown that being vaccinated reduces viral loads after infection, even with the delta variant [4, 5]. There are also a few studies on household transmission [5, 6] that show that transmission between vaccinated individuals is significantly less likely. [1] https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2114228 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2114228 [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410 [3] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620 [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01575-4 [5] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3... [6] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(21)00208-X/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6...
- beberlei 5y ago
  Last year had the original variant and this year delta. In addition last year most countries already were in lockdown since October while this year lockdowns just started mid December. In addition there are still less hospital space taken by covid patients conpared to last year, although the problem here is also mass resignation of medical staff. How is that not much better on all fronts?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

flohofwoe 5y ago

Taking pressue off the healthcare system was the main goal of all restrictions, this was communicated right from the start at least in Germany. Because what happens when the healthcare system breaks down could be seen in various countries early in the pandemic.

ssl232 5y ago
On the last point, have there been any developments in early treatment protocols in Germany?
- usrusr 5y ago
  Early as in "apparently that person has an infection building up, there's a small risk of it getting very bad, do we get out the rare, expensive early treatment pills full of side effects for this one?" I've heard one tiny statement about that question, it sounded like strong focus on practicality. Like cases already in treatment/observation for unrelated reasons (but likely increased risks). Certainly no "oh, your test pinged positive? Here, have these for five days" anytime soon.
chronofar 5y ago
And this is irrational on a country wide scale, though understandable at the beginning. We should, I would think, be much better at modeling by this point factoring in vaccinations and recovery immunity to make predictions about specific municipal healthcare risks and move resources to meet them accordingly. Knee-jerk national restrictions based on accelerating cases seems foolish at this point without stringent data models that predict unacceptable levels of healthcare strain. Maybe such models are put forward in some places, but I haven’t seen it.

usrusr 5y ago

They won't stop spread, that much is true. Vaccine passes are not a device for stopping the virus. They are devices for allowing venues to do business by reducing harmful effects to a point that's considered acceptable. The "pressuring of individuals" is a side effect that many consider positive, but not the reason why they exist.

NoPie 5y ago

Most likely, the reason for vaccine passes is that the authorities believed that they will limit the spread of covid. When it didn't happen they could not backtrack and just continued with vague notions that it will help to improve vaccine uptake.