On Vaccine Passports.

Luke "Lantern" Thompson
7 min readSep 27, 2021


VACCINE PASSPORTS are a new “measure” which have been implemented by the various provincial governments on behalf of the Federal government. The methods of coercion have not changed much since Covid “began” back in March or April of 2020 in that many businesses who have a storefront want to facilitate their success by either complying out of false notions of social acceptability or by mistaking dictates for laws. Ones own subjective theory of social acceptance subsequently clashes with what consumers actually value.

Consumers seek places that encourage extroversion and take notice of places that offer a quality product and service. Prospective customers become customers proper when they are drawn into a place that appears to promise a quality experience. Tim Hortons or McDonalds do not offer quality products from a health and wellness point of view, but they do offer cleanliness, a social setting, a pristine exterior and a re-conceptualized look by making amendments to their interior design every few years. Certain locations that I am aware of have abolished their old ways of disposing garbage through alternatives that make filthy compacter machines void and further enhance customer experience. This indicates that people value appearances more than the product itself. Maintaining the perception of value when the product itself is not very valuable in of itself is of most upmost importance to fast food restaurants.

Consumers rarely seek to impose their value system onto others because they only care about the satisfaction that consuming a certain product will bring about. Controversy arises when formerly impartial and passive consumers see those who are non-complaint as being belligerent when they are refused service. If these Covid-compliant businesses are willing to endure belligerence when someone of a more aggressive disposition is refused service, then why won’t they endure the belligerence of someone who angrily complains to them about an unvaccinated person receiving equal service? It is most likely because the non-compliant do not have the coercive powers of the police who may, for the purposes of practical politics, side with the bloodhound who flinches at every hint of non-compliance. Fortunately, I have not seen or heard of police departments aggressively enforcing vaccine passports so far. In the meantime, people should be prepared to enforce their right to privacy with a list of all the laws that the Covid vaccine mandates are in contravention of.

Unlike the customers, employers evaluate prospective employees based on how much value they are a likely to generate if hired, getting vaccinated does not add any value to ones work ethic and overall skill-set. Forcing your most promising or skilled employees to get a vaccine may be a positive externality for the company if it is for some public relations scheme, but is a negative externality for the day-to-day operations of the business if your most reliable employees have an adverse reaction to it. It is reckless for an employer to think in terms of probability as opposed to assessing weather or not the status quo has contributed to increased illness because his employees haven’t been vaccinated. There is no point in using probability on what the benefits of getting vaccinated may be when there is no way of knowing what the benefits may be. The well-being of the employee’ comes before the companies public image when someone’s health is at stake. A manager at a grocery store may increase sales because he is good at ordering certain products which relate to consumer demand, but if he abuses his employees, then his productivity decreases because no one will want to work for him. Employee’s do not work “under” the manager, they work for the manager because the success or failure of the store will either hurt or improve the reputation of the store manager.

Many lower-level employees may be disposable for a large franchise like McDonalds, but there is no central HQ of McDonalds which has localized knowledge and can therefore make decisions for all the managers at the innumerable locations that there are. Managers must make decisions based on the knowledge they have as it relates to the current condition of their workforce. If most of your morning shift crew consists of retirees who appear to be in poor health, then having them get a vaccine may be riskier then having them not get it because protective equipment has kept them from becoming sick for over a year. Considering that natural immunity protects against all viruses simultaneously whereas vaccines only target one out of many possible threats, then it is not worth risking injury. Retirees who are employed at a lower wage occupation have a high time preference whereas high school-level employees have a substantially lower one. Employers anticipate high turnover whenever they hire a group of students, but they have no way of anticipating who will become ill or terminal from receiving a vaccine without a prior medical examination. If a few key long-term employees become ill due to the vaccine, then depending on the role of that employee, the operations of the business could be effected greatly especially if an unexperienced manager has to step into a managerial role that requires far greater responsibility and organization.

Vaccine mandates have no inherent regard for peoples welfare because if they did, corrupt premiers(who are laughably called “leaders”) would not be advocating for procedural anarchy; the idea that one can receive a highly invasive medical procedure from a no-name stranger as if they were on an assembly line and in absence of any individualized risk assessment based on ones medical history and current status. Informed consent is not possible with vaccines in that one will never know how they will react to it. Information about the contents of a vaccine is of no use to the lay person, it is only the results that are relevant. One can not know the rewards of taking a vaccine, but they can experience the negatives. It is therefore absurd to assume that there are any rewards when we do not have any sensory indications of effectiveness unlike the experience of different symptoms when we are ill.

Many months ago, there was an announcement made by Doug Ford and his equally disreputable colleagues of the executive branch of government where they stated that the vaccines will be rolling out soon and that they have hired a bioethicist to consult with. It is not known who this bioethicists is or what his role is/was exactly, but we can infer from the vagary surrounding this talking point that there was no bioethicist because there are no services he can offer in the stage of vaccine procurement. Furthermore, vaccine mandates, like lockdowns and masks, are just a part of a blanket order requiring everyone to obey without exception. It is implied that obedience must precede ethics.

On the topic of bioethics, the government is in total violation of all bioethical principles:

  1. They lack respect for ones autonomy, both physical and personal. The police have violated the physical autonomy of those who have attended anti lockdown rallies numerous times by arresting those who refuse to show identification for a public health fine that is blatantly unconstitutional. They have not attacked the personal autonomy of those that have not been vaccinated through the vaccine-passport scheme which limits the options people have to take part in civil life. It is no different, in principle, then racial segregation. By limiting ones mobility, they hope that the unvaccinated will eventually submit out of desperation when they find themselves running out of options. Self-determination is not only the basis of medical liberty, but liberty in general.
  2. Non-maleficience: Vaccines may not do any noticeable harm to those who, by chance, are more resilient in the body then those who are more open to risk. It is reckless for any doctor to advise a parent that everyone must be vaccinated regardless of age or medical status just to be politically correct and “respectable”. Ones subjective view of respectability should not overrule objective necessity.
  3. Paternalism: This principle is a bit controversial because it may aswell fall into the category of non-maleficience when politicized medicine advises one to adhere to physician-centered decisions where contrarian arguments are dismissed or ignored.
  4. Justice: The executive branch of government has, without merit, continued to rule by producing arbitrary dictates which hamper police resources and break Peels principles of policing which were designed to enhance public trust in law enforcement.

The vaccine passports will, overtime, force businesses to adapt to customers who are unvaccinated. For all businesses, production must come before consumption as measured by time preference. Businesses need to spend differently to accommodate as opposed to spending more on new systems to enforce the vaccine passports. The restaurant owner works for his or her customers, not the other way around. The CERB welfare parachute payments halted the productivity of many persons by inducing laziness, now the vaccine passports only help to further incentivize passive consumption by clashing with the values of others and coercing them out of a job. There is no stopping principle that the executive branch of the government adheres to because their style of rulemaking or “lawmaking” is akin to insider trading; secret laws are not legitimate laws because they avoid public scrutiny before their formation.