Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

People are more comfortable around injections/treatments that have been around a long time - it's just human nature. There are loads of people reluctant to get this one, and trying to coerce them into it does not work. If anything I suspect it's counter-productive.

I appreciate and understand your views regarding the decision of those who chose not to get a covid-19 vaccination. You're entitled to them.

But are these indoor dining restrictions to be justified on some moral/punitive basis? I don't think any exists that isn't extremely threatening on a wider but fundamental front.

Is it a practical/tangible benefit basis? Surely common sense tells us that retaining this measure will not have a sufficient impact on the spread of the disease to justify it.

Is it that by restricting access to participation in society we will coerce them to get vaccinated? Then we are back to the moral issue. Further, it's being attempted by the backdoor as opposed to in plain sight by passing mandatory vaccination laws, which (and I could be wrong about this), I don't believe would attract general support.

Their motivation is just not relevant.

A civil authority should not be allowed do anything it wants as long as there was no evidence of conspiracy/nefarious intent. It could just be the wrong thing to do.

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but the idea that retaining the covid cert thing is a legitimate way to ensure events can proceed in the future is just guff. There's no cause and effect here.

For whatever reason, the State/authorities or whatever you prefer to call them is very keen to retain this measure, and it is actively holding out the prospect of wider restrictions being retained as an alternative to retaining "just this one". The assessment made has been, probably correctly, that the majority of the vaccinated will not put up a fight on it as it doesn't directly impact them. So the promise is held out, if we just keep this cert thing (which doesn't affect you anyway) you can go to your concerts, matches, other events - nothing to see here, no problems at all right?

Ultimately, people will not only express relief moving toward gratitude that this might be the only restriction retained but they will actively come up with their own reasons why it should be enforced.

Engendering and mobilising this acrimony and dislike of other people in society who have done no more than exercise a legitimate choice involving the very fundamentals of what they want to have injected into their bodies is very undesirable.

Not to mention that, as I keep saying, there is no actual, practical justification for this measure.

How am I supposed to prove their motivation? How would my ability to explain their motivation change whether this is a legitimate act by the State or not? How would your subjective opinion matter to the objective question of whether there should be covid passes for indoor dining? I'm willing to accept that they are acting with the best of intentions. Who cares? They are as likely to be right or wrong regardless of intention. This is a side-show. The approach of demanding proof of the nefarious/conspiracy is also a step along the road to classifying moderate people such as myself as extremists/fringe elements/conspiracy theorists/loonies. No proof of a conspiracy = if you're against it you're a conspiracy theorist.

You say "other people are comparing these measures to the Holocaust". So what? I am not. But lets talk about comparisions if you wish.

Seatbelts have a huge practical benefit, as you are well aware, and requiring their use involves no meaningful encroachment on civil rights.

Certainly nothing that stands comparison to preventing the exercise of the right to attend a lawful event, associate with other people etc. The penalty for non-use of seatbelt = a fine and penalty points.

No one has been able to set out what the comparable practicable benefit of retaining the covid pass thing would be. Everyone appears to accept that it will not meaningfully reduce the spread of disease. Further you are far more likely to get infected by a vaccinated person (that's just statistics). To the extent that the "disproportionate burden" line is trotted out (enticing as it is on a superficial level) that has never been the basis for restricting participation in society before, and rightly so.

To the extent that outlandish comparisons are being made, the comparison between the law on seatbelts and the requirement to hold a covid pass to attend a lawful event is entirely outlandish.

(ps yes if you get too many penalty points on the road your licence to drive is suspended. Driving is, in law, a privilege and not a right. Further, you're not suggesting there should be a similar approach taken to covid passes)