The vaccine passport debate isn't new. It started in 1897 during a plague pandemic

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Vaccine passports have been touted by some as our ticket to normalcy -- easily accessible proof of immunization and a reward for those who got their shots. They've also been called invasive and ineffective.

The debate over proof of vaccination as a requirement for entry dates back more than 120 years. The first time certificates of vaccines were required, health officials were fighting a plague pandemic.

In the 1890s, the Government of British India enacted a series of measures in an attempt to stop the spread of the plague, which included requiring travelers to prove they'd been vaccinated against the bacterial disease.

But colonized people living in India then saw government-mandated vaccine certificates as an invasive measure meant to curb travel and control citizens' movements. Officials struggled to enforce the requirement as they were outnumbered by people traveling across the country.

-more-

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-vaccine-passport-debate-isn-t-new-it-started-in-1897-during-a-plague-pandemic/ar-BB1fEUAg

[zipplewrath]

1. There's nothing new under theIt sun

The problem with history is that we've always done everything before. It's popular to say that history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. But it does, yes one can find the differences, but the underlying realities are still there. There is a constant ying and yang between our own ability to decide things for ourselves, and the "tragedy of the commons" in which that decision effects everyone else. It is the conflict of "freedom". The right has gone way "right" on this issue which would make the founders pale.