How's that vaccine passport working out? (2013, mover, buy)

[chicagoliz]

Originally Posted by Urban Peasant

Well there you are. We have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this country and all citizens including our law enforcement officers are entitled to enjoy all civil and political rights, something other countries do not share. No I am not in support of a "police" state because it would be just as wrong to ban vaccine passports and prohibiting individual private businesses from enforcing them. Either way, someone is bound to disagree and that person should have the right to protest. What I am trying to point out is the necessary setup for successful vaccine passport enforcement. It is too easy for an authoritarian country like China to enforce vaccine passports because they don't have to worry about civil rights complaints and everyone complies when told to. That's not the case here. This vaccine passport mandate is probably doomed to fail and will end up like our little known and never enforced jaywalking law. (Yes, Boston does have a jaywalking law on the books but the fine is only $1 and cops do not enforce it. The week after reading about it, I put the ordinance to the test at a minor intersection with a pedestrian light and two cops on the opposite side. The pedestrian light said "Don't Walk" so I did not cross even though there were no cars. The two cops thought it bizarre that I would not cross and waved me across. No fine, no verbal rebuke but granted permission to jaywalk contrary to law .)

You seem to forget that during the 1800s, when we did have the Constitution and Bill of Rights that health authorities *did* forcefully vaccinate some people and quarantine others who were exposed to disease, prohibiting them from leaving their house and prohibiting anyone new from entering.

You could say we have evolved -- being asked to show a card before entering a place where one desires to go is much less intrusive on individual liberty than we saw earlier. So the constitutional argument falls short.

[msRB311]

I think that will be part of the problem is that some places are stricter about it than others. At the bruins game I took my mask off when i sat in my seat as did many others. No one said anything.

I also went to a hockey game in east boston where masks are 'mandated' and not everyone had one on there either. No one was enforcing.

Not sure why Reginas felt the need to yell at people to put on their masks is their choice. I'm sure it's stressful running a busy restaurant...and how can you tell if someone is eating or finished eating or what??

[masssachoicetts]

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

You seem to forget that during the 1800s, when we did have the Constitution and Bill of Rights that health authorities *did* forcefully vaccinate some people and quarantine others who were exposed to disease, prohibiting them from leaving their house and prohibiting anyone new from entering.

You could say we have evolved -- being asked to show a card before entering a place where one desires to go is much less intrusive on individual liberty than we saw earlier. So the constitutional argument falls short.

Hey no critical thinking here! We are supposed to pick and choose our history!

[id77]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I think that will be part of the problem is that some places are stricter about it than others. At the bruins game I took my mask off when i sat in my seat as did many others. No one said anything.

I also went to a hockey game in east boston where masks are 'mandated' and not everyone had one on there either. No one was enforcing.

Not sure why Reginas felt the need to yell at people to put on their masks is their choice. I'm sure it's stressful running a busy restaurant...and how can you tell if someone is eating or finished eating or what??

A think a lot of places would like to be stricter, but the same logic as space savers ultimately applies: is it worth the risk of personal injury or worse to do it?

The thing is, the people not masking up have demonstrated time and time and time again they're angry and willing to die on that hill. Many are looking for a fight. If 9 out of 10 people not wearing a mask would say 'oops, forgot, let me put it on' when asked, the number of places that would enforce it more would be much higher. As it stands, 9 out of 10 people not wearing a mask are ready to yell, swear, spit, punch, and make a scene over it, and that's a stress many would rather just avoid.

It's not apathy that keeps enforcement low, but fear of an irrational minority.

[ben young]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Hope you're not planning to fly anywhere. Heaven forbid you have to show your (gasp!) driver's license with far more private information on it.

or a ID to vote

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by id77

It's not apathy that keeps enforcement low, but fear of an irrational minority.

Eh, at this point I'd argue that it's probably some combination of both (with a smattering of active resistance thrown in the mix as well, but that's still a significant minority).

I think the incredibly transmissible Omicron variant, combined with nearly 2 years of requirements and restrictions, has really shifted moods about COVID and the amount of effort people are willing to put into prevention. I do think the people who are being asked to enforce these rules are concerned about the angry, unruly anti-mask nut who has no qualms with yelling at a teenager earning minimum wage. But I also think that they're probably just becoming more indifferent about COVID by now. There's a pretty good chance they've already had it. And if they haven't, they're probably not all that concerned with catching it given the extremely low odds of a severe illness. So on top of trying to avoid getting accosted, the self preservation instinct to avoid catching COVID is not what it was with previous variants (particularly during surges). Between the two of those, it's hard to convince a low wage employee to confront someone for not wearing a mask.

[msRB311]

I think people are just frustrated at this point. Many thought this would be over once they got vaccinated. Now many have had 3 shots and are still expected to wear a mask. Some didn't even like the idea of masking up before they were vaccinated...and yes some don't want to be vaccinated at all still. Overall I think many people just want life to be normal again and that means going to the north end without having to put on a mask.

[id77]

Originally Posted by lrfox

Eh, at this point I'd argue that it's probably some combination of both (with a smattering of active resistance thrown in the mix as well, but that's still a significant minority).

I think the incredibly transmissible Omicron variant, combined with nearly 2 years of requirements and restrictions, has really shifted moods about COVID and the amount of effort people are willing to put into prevention. I do think the people who are being asked to enforce these rules are concerned about the angry, unruly anti-mask nut who has no qualms with yelling at a teenager earning minimum wage. But I also think that they're probably just becoming more indifferent about COVID by now. There's a pretty good chance they've already had it. And if they haven't, they're probably not all that concerned with catching it given the extremely low odds of a severe illness. So on top of trying to avoid getting accosted, the self preservation instinct to avoid catching COVID is not what it was with previous variants (particularly during surges). Between the two of those, it's hard to convince a low wage employee to confront someone for not wearing a mask.

That plays into the overall risk assessment, but the nutjobs are the major needle movers. By that, I mean the COVID fatigue is pushing down the amount risk someone is willing to take engaging with an angry patron, but the risk of dealing with those patrons is still so much higher.

I would argue that if there were no real number of documented outbursts from angry people regarding putting masks on, enforcement would be similar to carding someone for booze. It's part of the job, the risk of a confrontation is low, so even if it doesn't matter much to the server personally they go along with it. And, not doing it comes with a potential fine and consequence, so the risk analysis tips strongly toward enforcement.

With masks, there's no fine to the business for non-compliance (yet), so the risk is almost entirely weighted by the stress of putting up with idiots who fight it. It's not worth it.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by ben young

or a ID to vote

I'm not opposed to an ID to vote. Where did you get that idea?

But then--if you require an ID to exercise the constitutional right to vote--you better make it free to obtain...otherwise, it's like imposing a poll tax. Of course, that's off-topic...but reinforces the point on vax passports. They're free to obtain!

[ben young]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

I'm not opposed to an ID to vote. Where did you get that idea?

But then--if you require an ID to exercise the constitutional right to vote--you better make it free to obtain...otherwise, it's like imposing a poll tax. Of course, that's off-topic...but reinforces the point on vax passports. They're free to obtain!

Constitutional right for a firearm ,however in Ma you have to pay a fee for one.