It doesn’t matter what you’ve said in your earlier works when we are discussing the contents of an individually published piece. That’s just like saying that a student should be given high grade in subject Y because he received a high grade in Subject X. It doesn’t work like that and shouldn’t work like that. The readers are not going to read every work that you’ve done in the past before beginning to read an independent piece of publication. Or is that what you want your reader to do? Therefore, let’s just stick to the contents of the article which is the subject of discussion here.
I don’t understand the use of exclamation mark by you after the statement “Responses to your points”. Is it to express anger? Is that supposed to intimidate me?
Your “angry/ surprised” response to my point 1 is a poor thought argument because the concern I expressed was regarding your use of op-eds to establish a scientific factual assertion made by the author(s). At the cost of repetition, it has to be observed that you categorically stated in your article “it is important to keep in mind that there are still critical unknowns when it comes to whether vaccination is a guarantor of prevention of transmission of the infection”. The op-eds cited do not provide these “critical unknowns” mentioned by you. Why are you directing me to the opinions of “5 experts” on vaccine passports? I could do the same and send you opinion from 10 experts saying the opposite. The point of this conversation is to understand why was said what was said in the article. It is not just about the individual opinion expressed here but rather more about the potential consequences of such opinion. Even at the cost of sounding cliche, I’m going to say- with great power comes great responsibility.
I did not call the author myopic, I called the research myopic. There’s a huge difference between the two. While a myopic person would always view things from their point of view, a myopic research work does not mean the researcher concerned is understood to have always done or be always doing myopic research. It is a comment on the type of research and not a personal remark on the researcher. Unless one is unable to separate the two, in which case the researcher’s bias is proven.
Please don’t insult the intelligence of your readers. Please don’t. Don’t assume what they know or do not know. Luckily, I happen to be a lawyer working with other brilliantly trained lawyers and was trained by what has been frequently credited as the best law institution of India- National Law School of India University. Hate to have said this but could not accept an accusation of lack of legal understanding. The ratio decidendi of judgments by WRIT courts cannot be applied in all kinds of facts and circumstances. The rights pronounced in Maneka Gandhi were pronounced for reasons different than were claimed in the article. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Would it have been okay to have allowed people for inbound tourism during 2nd wave of Covid-19 in India because in Maneka Gandhi the SC had pronounced right to travel abroad as an inseverable part of the fundamental right to dignity and personal liberty? Like you said, the right to travel abroad can only be curtailed by procedure established by law which should be fair, just, and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary. Do you think restrictions on unvaccinated persons to prevent them from travelling for inbound tourism is unjust? Would that be just to vaccinated persons? I feel like you did not understand the primary concern here which is that vaccine passports are being created to resume inbound tourism. The proposition of creating them is not data theft, governments might misuse them for it but it is not the reason for their creation. Else they could have been created instead of AADHAR or any other data stealing government tools. Vaccine passports were not created before because there was no need for them earlier. But there is one now. The efforts should be to make this tool stronger and avoid possibilities of data breach and not to prevent its creation when it is a tool of need.
There was no point 5. It was not an argument against the content. I did not making any scientific factual claims there that would have required scientific data for establishing it. And anyway, it is a comment on an article not a material created for wide circulation. haha you really did compare the accountability of a comment on an article piece made on an inactive forum with that of a widely circulated report. I am amused. Thanks for the honour. And like I said, I had sadly gone to the trouble of producing sources for my views and assertions but due to the limitation of 2 links on my response, I couldn’t. That did give you a chance to compare the responsibility of my comment with that of a widely followed advocacy outlet such as IFF. Cool, thanks haha.
By all means please critically evaluate the mandatory imposition of vaccination passports through digital technologies but evaluating an issue on a single parameter is not critical evaluation especially when there are various other parameters to consider.
A well-worn proverb says that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; most assuredly, the road to nonprofit demise is paved with the same bricks. Just because an organization is dedicated to a moral cause, it does not make it immune from making mistakes. Missions are always bigger than organizations and organizations are always bigger than the individuals who run them.
Best wishes to you, keep up the good work