When the vaccination rollout ends (until updated versions are released), there will be millions of adults and children left unvaccinated. Not all of them will be refuseniks. Good luck trying to separate them the vaccinated population.
This is where programmer logic collides with the brick wall of reality. Passports will be bureaucratic, intrusive, inconvenient. Oh, and will also result in millions of people effectively being unpersoned by the state.
Does that sound like a proportionate response to a virus with a 99% survival rate? To a programmer, probably yes.
You are as free to obtain a certificate of vaccination from your GP as you are to exhibit your God complex on this forum.
Total capitulation?It's warms the cockles of my heart to see total capitulation. I enjoyed discussing it with you, although you rather lost your dignity by turning snippy.
This whole thread has been a dialectical process to find the justifications for introducing domestic vaccination passports.
Your submission is that passports are warranted because they may create safer environments because the vaccines may reduce transmission.
The interim research suggests that transmission may be reduced (I've never resisted that idea), but it is not certain.
It is quite possible that vaccinated and unvaccinated people are equally likely to carry and transmit the disease (although the former would be less likely to become seriously ill).
So distinguishing between the two groups would not obviously create a safer environment. Vaccinated or not, we are all potential vectors in that scenario.
Until compelling evidence emerges to the contrary, your endorsement of vaccination passports is based on a speculation. Or, as you would put it, a logical proposition.
This entire lockdown has been based on a logical proposition - cut interactions, cut transmission - and look at the destruction it has wrought. Look at how ineffective it has been.
I don't know about you, but I've had enough of government prescriptions lacking in proven efficacy.