This article asserts none of its top level claims, it merely brings up a series of questions they feel are important for the discussion. There are below the fold assertions that are outright false, such as "Vaccine certificates render the individual in an impossible place of having to choose vaccination or loss of employment and exclusion from society." Vaccines are free. Vaccination is hundreds of times safer than infection, and infection has a much higher societal cost. If you can't afford the vaccine, you definitely can't afford the illness. Given this structure, this article looks suspiciously like JAQing off.<p>Assuming that the article is in good conscience, I'm just going to give a quick answer on each of the points.<p>1. What is the intent and what are the end points? Vaccine certificates impose a significant burden on the population.<p>Yes, vaccine certificates would impose a burden. However, unchecked covid19 imposes a huge societal burden as well. Given current knowledge, covid19 has a much higher cost than a vaccine certificate. A 1-2 year expiration on a vaccine certificate law would be one way these concerns could be balanced.<p>2. Can we stop transmission with vaccine certificates?<p>False dichotomy. We don't need to completely stop covid19. We just need to lower the societal cost. Vaccines are very good at doing that, and this article doesn't really have a strong argument as to why vaccine certificates wouldn't at push vaccination numbers higher.<p>3. What are the logistical considerations of such a program?<p>Similar any similar nation wide legal system. Also, I can't help feel that this article uses "Think of the homeless!" the way that some people like to use "Think of the children!" The homeless aren't the only members of society (in fact, they're a smaller population than the children) and their concerns must be balanced against everyone else's. Given the extreme cost of dealing with covid19, both financially and in terms of medical resource utilization (both resources that the homeless use as well), it's reasonable to believe that a higher vaccination rate will improve resources available for the homeless.<p>4. What are the unintended consequences?<p>Something. There's always an unintended consequence. Yet life goes on, and legislative bodies still pass laws. This point isn't an argument against a vaccine certificate, it's merely an argument that such a law should be well crafted. Something I agree with 110%. Given the extreme cost of covid19, it's also fair to say that even a flawed implementation could still be very useful.<p>5. Why are people vaccine-hesitant?<p>A valid question, but much like point 4, not particularly an argument against vaccine certificates. One thing that I have to iterate again is that if you think the vaccine is expensive, think how much worse the illness can be.<p>6. Are vaccine certificates ethical?<p>Vaccination records have been considered ethical for some time, this article makes no argument as to why covid19 vaccines are special.