Argument 2:

Implementation of a sustainable vaccine passport system would also require substantial administration. Agreements on passport standards including testing and documentation would have to be made internationally.

The financial burden to implement this successfully, especially in a post 2020 "we had two lock-downs and fucked our economy" world is significant. A separate monitoring system, production/publishing facility, security protocols, staffing, enforcement, etc... all of these thing would create a passport system costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars each year. This would also apply to each country enacting a vaccine passport system.

Furthermore successful administration of a vaccine passport system would require equivalent standards on not only the country accepting the vaccine passport traveler, but also the nation from the where the travel resides. The only other solution to this would be to grant exemptions (see argument 1) or limit travel to only those nations participating in the vaccine passport systems who share equivalent standards and procedure.

The cost of this process slowly becomes astronomical and enforcement almost impossible.

Instead, a much easier and financially flexible system would be to require only those without a vaccine to carry identifying papers of their lack of vaccination. These paper could be disposed of upon successful vaccination by a registered medical facility.

The problem this creates, however, is that in 2021 personal responsibility is in the toilet, so relying on citizens to carry such papers, or trusting that papers carried by those who are and are not vaccinated are not forgeries becomes difficult to impossible to enforce yet again, unless there is substantial financial investment, which yet again prevents participation by 3rd world nations (see argument 1).

Instead, a much more reliable and enforceable system is to require a visual system of identification. In this system those who are not, or cannot receive a vaccine would be required to maintain mask wearing and would be easily identifiable by those vaccinated (or at risk) to ensure they can maintain their personal safety and still maintain the liberties of those who refuse the vaccination.

In a case like this, perhaps a yellow star, or similar badge would be required to be worn by the un-vaccinated. With such an identifier it would be very easy to limit those individuals from entering "high risk" areas such as shopping malls, medical facilities (unless properly quarantined), restaurants, and social events. As the choice to be vaccinated lays with the individual, the government therefore would be exempt of accusations of racism, classism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc.

Another extremely useful advantage to having the un-vaccinated wear the yellow star identifier is that it would be very easy to identify these potential virus spreaders and could be implemented to restrict access to the unvaccinated from specific workplaces due to their high risk of viral spread. Specific workplaces like medical facilities, food preparation, event management and so forth would be exempt from hiring the un-vaccinated. Safe, and low viral transmission work places such as garbage collection, recycling, chemical extraction, an so forth could be reserved for the un-vaccinated, and the yellow star would alleviate the uncomfortable question about vaccines during the interview and hiring process, thereby ensuring proper racial, sexual, social equity.

By expanding this process, limitations on where the un-vaccinated reside could be implemented thereby ensuring that those of high risk viral transmission only remain in their residential "safety bubble" and no longer would present a risk to greater society. Residential "blocks" or "neighborhoods" can be created for the yellow star wearing un-vaccinated, and this would also allow for special shopping and social districts which would be specially designed for these individuals.

The solution is inexpensive, highly visible, and efficient.

There is already historical examples of this which our societies can draw upon.

Argument 2:

Implementation of a sustainable vaccine passport system would also require substantial administration. Agreements on passport standards including testing and documentation would have to be made internationally.

The financial burden to implement this successfully, especially in a post 2020 "we had two lock-downs and fucked our economy" world is significant. A separate monitoring system, production/publishing facility, security protocols, staffing, enforcement, etc... all of these thing would create a passport system costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars each year. This would also apply to each country enacting a vaccine passport system.

Furthermore successful administration of a vaccine passport system would require equivalent standards on not only the country accepting the vaccine passport traveler, but also the nation from the where the travel resides. The only other solution to this would be to grant exemptions (see argument 1) or limit travel to only those nations participating in the vaccine passport systems who share equivalent standards and procedure.

The cost of this process slowly becomes astronomical and enforcement almost impossible.

Instead, a much easier and financially flexible system would be to require only those without a vaccine to carry identifying papers of their lack of vaccination. These paper could be disposed of upon successful vaccination by a registered medical facility.

The problem this creates, however, is that in 2021 personal responsibility is in the toilet, so relying on citizens to carry such papers, or trusting that papers carried by those who are and are not vaccinated are not forgeries becomes difficult to impossible to enforce yet again, unless there is substantial financial investment, which yet again prevents participation by 3rd world nations (see argument 1).

Instead, a much more reliable and enforceable system is to require a visual system of identification. In this system those who are not, or cannot receive a vaccine would be required to maintain mask wearing and would be easily identifiable by those vaccinated (or at risk) to ensure they can maintain their personal safety and still maintain the liberties of those who refuse the vaccination.

In a case like this, perhaps a yellow star, or similar badge would be required to be worn by the un-vaccinated. With such an identifier it would be very easy to limit those individuals from entering "high risk" areas such as shopping malls, medical facilities (unless properly quarantined), restaurants, and social events. As the choice to be vaccinated lays with the individual and therefore would exempt the government of accusations of rascism, classism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc.

Another extremely useful advantage to having the un-vaccinated wear the yellow star identifier is that it would be very easy to identify these potential virus spreaders and could be implemented to restrict access to the unvaccinated from specific workplaces due to their high risk of viral spread. Specific workplaces like medical facilities, food preparation, event management and so forth would be exempt from hiring the un-vaccinated. Safe, and low viral transmission work places such as garbage collection, recycling, chemical extraction, an so forth could be reserved for the un-vaccinated, and the yellow star would alleviate the uncomfortable question about vaccines during the interview and hiring process, thereby ensuring proper racial, sexual, social equity.

By expanding this process, limitations on where the un-vaccinated reside could be implemented thereby ensuring that those of high risk viral transmission only remain in their residential "safety bubble" and no longer would present a risk to greater society. Residential "blocks" or "neighborhoods" can be created for the yellow star wearing un-vaccinated, and this would also allow for special shopping and social districts which would be specially designed for these individuals.

The solution is inexpensive, highly visible, and efficient.

There is already historical examples of this which our societies can draw upon.