Thread by @NoLore

Here is a little thread on vaccine passports and how, again, media is getting this story wrong.

Journalists should not be asking "passports yes/no" but instead what it means for a government to institute a passport system (and what it means for a gov't to *not* institute one)

I'm speaking only for Canada right now -- this gets more difficult when you bring in the global perspective. But in Canada, if a government announces a vaccine passport, they de facto have the moral responsibility to ensure that a vaccination program is as accessible as possible.

You can't attend concerts or play sports? Fine -- call a line and get your vaccine then through a home visit or visit to the venue of the event/activity.

You can't eat at restaurants? Fine -- vaccine buses are ready to meet you before dinner.

Is there a systemic reason for you a community is not yet vaccinated? Creating a passport system morally requires the government to work with these communities to be vaccinated.

Exploring it through this lens teases out what we mean by hesitancy, refusal and access.

But more important are the implications of a government who refuses the vaccine passport. Ok, that's an OK direction to go too, but then what happens is that governments download the responsibility to police vaccine status.

So rather than it coming from above, employers are given the power to decide to impose vaccine mandates. Except they do not have the power to compel more accessible vaccination! So that leaves people in a way tougher spot (with their boss, en plus).

There becomes no solution to the dilemma "I need vaccine proof to attend this concert" (at the decision of the venue) because the initial barrier of actually getting the vaccine isn't something that the venue has any power over.

When you tease this angle out, you start to see all the reasons for why the yes/no frame is insufficient, and instead.

Anyway, please do better journalism.