CNN: The COVID Pandemic is “not an ideal moment to parse the fine points of individual rights”

Actually, it’s exactly the right time to be concerned with individual rights. Well, all the time is the right time. But, it does show what Liberals really think, per this Peter Baldwin piece

Vaccine passports — A technical, not an ideological issue

Forgive me for thinking that the midst of a global pandemic that cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars in economic loss is not an ideal moment to parse the fine points of individual rights. Covid has already sparked political fires over how to rein it in.

Privacy advocates have undercut contact tracing apps’ use. This technology would have permitted us to go about our business — unless we were unfortunate enough to contract infection. Then we would have been alerted to isolate. That was certainly preferable to the alternative we were left with — most everyone stuck at home in lockdown.

The claims that mask-wearing in public violates civil rights is too ludicrous to discuss — were it not for the many who seem to believe so. In seemingly every western democracy, anti-mask movements, organizations and parties have arisen to protest the affront they consider the requirement to protect themselves and others.

The same libertarians who are resigned to seat belts, cycle helmets and condoms have resisted the single most effective personal protection against a respiratory contagion. That refusal to follow simple protective guidelines has only helped to spread the virus and prolong the pandemic. “No shirt, no shoes, no service,” provokes nary a murmur, but “please wear a mask” is a red flag to the live-free-or-die crowd.

Masks are pretty much worthless, as they let COVID in. The material in most won’t stop a virus, and most have openings that let it in. Regardless, pieces like this expose that Democrats want citizens compliant. They don’t care about freedom, they want citizens to do as they’re told when they’re told and keep their mouths shut. Comply.

Vaccine passports are a temporary measure, useful during the interval while many are vaccinated, but before herd immunity has arrived. A different solution is needed for the few who have medical reasons to avoid vaccination. They must be given the benefits of inclusion in the scheme. For others, passports will distinguish those vaccinated from the rest.

If you continue reading the piece, you start to get an idea that the passports would not be temporary.

Whether we have passports or not, as a society, we will soon need to decide how to treat our fellow citizens who clear-eyed and consciously refuse to participate in the collective project of herd immunity. Anti-vaxxers, as those who oppose vaccines have come to be known, have objected to inoculation ever since the first vaccine against smallpox became a public health mandate in the late nineteenth century. Some raise religious objections, usually a fear of intermixture between human and animal.

And forced vaccination. Baldwin attempts to defend this, but, really, if some people don’t want it and risk getting sick (the percent who die or get it bad is extremely low), let them. If I’m vaccinated, I’m not worried. That’s on you.

Those who reject shots remain a threat to others. They spurn the solidarity of vaccination, which by now has become an expectation of citizenship. Should they be allowed to participate where they pose a threat? If not, how can we know whom to worry about without certification? Vaccine passports do not create that dilemma, the unvaccinated do.

So, forget your civil liberties. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Pieces like this do rather show that all the lockdowns and restrictions and such are less about protecting people from COVID and more about Governmental power.