Pretty dismal discussion in here at the time of writing. Largely complaints about tyranny. Makes me sad that we can't have a calm discussion about the merits of the policy.
From what I can tell, you might be opposed to this policy if:
1. You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate? And if so, how do you enforce this in a restaurant, where anyone eating takes off their mask right away?
2. You have fears about the privacy implications. If so, what are those fears? Perhaps your vaccination status can lead people to make inferences about your health?
3. You are not particularly concerned about the community spread of coronavirus (and the implications of that)
There aren't a lot of choices. You can 1) avoid high-risk areas and escape infection/spreading disease, in which case, this policy doesn't really directly affect you. Or 2) you can take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or later, and spread it. Or 3) you can "take your chances" with the vaccine which, statistically and biologically, is safer than getting coronavirus and reduces spread.
This policy allows people to choose from 1) and 3) but not 2), which is in all ways the worst decision. Unless, of course, you think that the vaccine is more dangerous than coronavirus. And then I don't really know what to say.
(lightly edited for clarification)
From what I can tell, you might be opposed to this policy if:
1. You have fears about getting a vaccine, moreso than for coronavirus. If this is you, do you prefer a mask mandate? And if so, how do you enforce this in a restaurant, where anyone eating takes off their mask right away?
2. You have fears about the privacy implications. If so, what are those fears? Perhaps your vaccination status can lead people to make inferences about your health?
3. You are not particularly concerned about the community spread of coronavirus (and the implications of that)
There aren't a lot of choices. You can 1) avoid high-risk areas and escape infection/spreading disease, in which case, this policy doesn't really directly affect you. Or 2) you can take your chances with coronavirus, which you will get sooner or later, and spread it. Or 3) you can "take your chances" with the vaccine which, statistically and biologically, is safer than getting coronavirus and reduces spread.
This policy allows people to choose from 1) and 3) but not 2), which is in all ways the worst decision. Unless, of course, you think that the vaccine is more dangerous than coronavirus. And then I don't really know what to say.
(lightly edited for clarification)