Society: rights vs requirements
Right now, the most important statistic for many around me is whether or not you have been vaccinated against COVID-19 via the public health service. I’m going to try to avoid slipping into a “rant” mode, but it won’t be easy. As of this date, fully 83% of the population (over the age of twelve) has started the process (which takes several months). The next logical move, by society, is to identify the 17% who have chosen an alternate strategy.
The simplest way is to implement a proof. Call it a “passport”. At this point, the road degrades. Among the 17%, we have two main camps. Those who can’t (for any number of health-related issues) and those who won’t. The red flag (for the rest of us) is the mention that it would be discriminatory to require immunization or proof thereof.
Just for fun, I’m going to draw an analogy, based on my own experience. I admit it: I have poor vision, AND I’m colour-blind (partially). Now, having the right to drive an automobile on public highways requires a “passport”. I have one, and I am aware that I must use a greater level of caution than my neighbours when I approach certain corners. Especially the ones with an octagonal sign designating the requirement to stop before proceeding.
If I was part of the “won’t” group, I could say that I “do not have to” stop because of the concept of freedom of choice. If I want to play the medical card, I could claim that I don’t discern red, so I shouldn’t be required to stop. In both cases, the rest of society also has input.
Remember, as a driver, I have a passport, and I don’t feel that this is discriminatory. More of a case of common sense.
So, when the members of the 17% (and declining) group make noise about discrimination, I’d like to hear what their rationale might be. We live in a shared environment.
