09-14-2021, 04:46 AM
The notion there's no point imposing a vaccine system because there are ways around it flies in the face of other government programs. The most obvious comparison is to underage use of fake identity cards to gain entry to licensed premises. That has been going on since time immemorial. Rather than taking the view there's no point continuing that prohibition, governments across the world have refused to back down. on the other hand, one would hope that governments take a less punitive approach against kids: treating them as naughty boys and girls is a better way to go.
A similar observation can be made about the "War on Drugs". For over 50 years, the US Govt in particular has been fighting a losing battle against drug use. But no government has managed to make much of a dent in the drug trade. If you want drugs, you can get them. A harm minimisation model would make more sense, but the prohibition model still reigns supreme.
Then you have the black economy. The fact no government can kill off that way of avoiding the tax system doesn't mean it will be permitted any time soon.
You also have systems which are more analogous to the vaccine passport system. Where the vaccine passport system seeks to protect health and life (and encourage vaccination), rules that restrict access to compensation schemes and welfare programs seek to protect taxpayer dollars and encourage working. To me, protecting health is more important, but let's not get stuck on that issue. Rules are adjusted to make it harder to rort the system, often reaching the point of trying to humiliate and frustrate people out of staying within the system. I doubt those who are dismayed by a system being created which seeks to make life hard for those who try to rort the vaccination passport system would be so aggrieved by the strategies used to make life hard for the unemployed or injured workers. It boils down to saying the good ol' boys and gals who are worried about their "freedom" are more sympathetic than the unemployed or injured workers.
A similar observation can be made about the "War on Drugs". For over 50 years, the US Govt in particular has been fighting a losing battle against drug use. But no government has managed to make much of a dent in the drug trade. If you want drugs, you can get them. A harm minimisation model would make more sense, but the prohibition model still reigns supreme.
Then you have the black economy. The fact no government can kill off that way of avoiding the tax system doesn't mean it will be permitted any time soon.
You also have systems which are more analogous to the vaccine passport system. Where the vaccine passport system seeks to protect health and life (and encourage vaccination), rules that restrict access to compensation schemes and welfare programs seek to protect taxpayer dollars and encourage working. To me, protecting health is more important, but let's not get stuck on that issue. Rules are adjusted to make it harder to rort the system, often reaching the point of trying to humiliate and frustrate people out of staying within the system. I doubt those who are dismayed by a system being created which seeks to make life hard for those who try to rort the vaccination passport system would be so aggrieved by the strategies used to make life hard for the unemployed or injured workers. It boils down to saying the good ol' boys and gals who are worried about their "freedom" are more sympathetic than the unemployed or injured workers.