By Adam Dick
Israel has gone further quicker than most governments in pushing people to take experimental coronavirus vaccines and imposing vaccine passports as a requirement for people to go about their daily activities. Last week, Israel Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz announced that holders of these vaccine passports, called green passes by the government, will be required to take yet another shot of experimental coronavirus “vaccine” — termed a booster shot — and, apparently, keep taking more booster shots and being exposed to additional side-effect risks each additional five to six months or their vaccine passports will be revoked.
If this new requirement can be imposed on people in order for them to keep their vaccine passports operating, there is no limit to the requirements that can be piled on. Israel is making the first move in transitioning from vaccine passports to everything passports.
To supposedly limit the spread of coronavirus, Israel or another government could next decide that a vaccine passport may be revoked if a person is caught not wearing a mask where required, not properly “social distancing,” gathering in a group larger than allowed, or posting on the internet or otherwise communicating ideas related to coronavirus that are deemed “misinformation.”
More broadly, to “protect public health,” vaccine passport could start being revoked because a person does not take a flu shot or whatever new shots or pills come out next — say for AIDS or Alzheimer’s prevention, fails to attend a yearly “wellness visit” with his doctor, seeks alternative treatment instead of taking prescribed pharmaceuticals, or does not make sure his children receive every recommended vaccination on time under a government schedule.
But, why must government stop at “protecting public health” as a justification for imposing new requirements for keeping vaccine passports operating, or why can’t government just announce that things that it claims protect from danger are deemed as “protecting public health?” Government can start revoking vaccine passports for people who are convicted of — or maybe just charged with — driving while intoxicated, behind on their tax or debt payments, or listed on the no-fly list.
This is just some of the low-hanging fruit for expanding requirements people must meet to be able to keep their vaccine passports operating and thus keep themselves in the new preferred caste in the developing caste system. Plenty more requirements can be added.
Further, each of a person’s actions or inactions looked at relative to vaccine passports will not need not be considered alone. Many actions and inactions could be weighed to calculate a score for each individual so that vaccine passports will be revoked if the score falls too low. Scores could also be used so a person’s vaccine passport would allow him entry some places but not others depending on score cutoffs.
In this age of computer algorithms, each person can have ten distinct scores that adjust to control the scope of his allowed actions in various circumstances. And, looking forward to a fully developed digitally connected vaccine passport having the ability to help surveille people, the scored actions and inactions will be better monitored for providing information to feed the continually adjusting determinations about revoking vaccine passports or determining where a person may legally be or what he may legally do.
Vaccine passports are a great threat to freedom in their current early iteration. If they are not eradicated early on, they threaten to become a much worse hazard over time as they transition from being vaccine passports to being everything passports.
This article was published by RonPaul Institute.