Talk:Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic

CaffeinAddict has taken a form of ownership over this article in the last week or so without consensus. I don't have issues with most of the changes but we need a balanced treatment of developments for and against vaccine passports, not burying coverage describing resistance to them while providing 10x as much space in coverage on support of them. It's by no means a universally desired or accepted phenomenon and remains highly controversial. They have been banned in a number of major jurisdictions and are being heavily protested as we speak in places where they have been implemented. This fact should be reflected in the lede, not minimized. Clemper (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I claim no

Ownership of this article. This article should take on an international view of the subject and you are adding US-centric views of the subject. COVID-19 misinformation is not tolerated in an article. I recently added information to my country - Canada - and added a TOClimit as to not take away from a worldwide view of the subject. Let it be known Clemper has removed my warnings on their talk page so as to bury my attempt at communication. This is my second attempt to respond due to disruption on this talk page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

How is a promotional sentence about Italy France and Canada's response to the passports (where in France and Italy at least, protest remains heavy) OK, while one equal or shorter-length sentence about the US (regarding nearly half its states, including by 2 of its 3 most-populated states, one of which itself is nearly as large as Canada in population) which is larger in population and GDP than those three countries combined 'US-centric'? It seems as if you just want to bury any coverage of criticism, while allowing all praise/persuasion in support of them to stand.Clemper (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism should be sourced. Basic principle. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced, later in the article. There's no need to re-cite in the lede. It junks it up IMO, and opinion aside, it isn't standard practice. The lede often contains uncited material that is sourced later on. It's not like it's some secret that there is controversy around and resistance to vaccine passports.Clemper (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which source? CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cite them when I have time, you can review them yourself for now; more sources added.Clemper (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your lengthy section continues to be US-centric and

WP:UNDUE weight to the criticism in the lede. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

How is a single 1.5 line sentence regarding the world's largest economy and most influential superpower which is larger in population (Florida and Texas alone are larger than Canada and comparable to Italy and France in population) than the other three countries mentioned (combined) US-centric?Clemper (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the world's largest economy and most influential superpower" your bias is showing. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no; the first is a fact, the second is generally accepted to be true, not to say it's a permanent state of affairs. And in terms of population it's more than twice the size of the other three countries mentioned, combined.Clemper (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entire COVID-19 pandemic doesn't revolve around the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States - unless you're just looking at the number of deaths and cases. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no revolving-around here; it's one sentence in one paragraph in a 4-paragraph lede and large article. The overwhelming majority of countries haven't implemented or rejected vaccine passports or even had a sizeable percentage of their population vaccinated, so those countries are excluded from the conversation for now. Among those who have taken an approach to the issue, we're looking at a few countries who have actually implemented them - Canada France Italy Israel (and maybe a handful of others) - and at least two who have rejected them (the US, UK; others have signaled rejection without passing law: Mexico, Croatia, Romania, Russia, etc). The US is much larger in population and GDP than the combined population and GDP of all countries who have actually implemented / enforced vaccine passports. Considering that and that the US is the world's most powerful nation, the sentence is noteworthy and should be included. Clemper (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who accused me of

WP:OWNing the article you've done nearly 100 edits on this article today. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, addressing your constant warring, as well as making unrelated changes. Re: US-centric, I added information on England and Wales. As for supposed undue weight, consider this: the population of places where vaccine passports are banned or canceled due to concerns of discrimination is greater than the population of places where they have actually been implemented/enforced. So content regarding controversy and protest should take up significant weight in the article. Right or wrong, this is uncharted territory that is generating extreme levels of controversy. No it's not comparable to school vaccine records, there have been calls to prevent people from buying food and getting medical treatment, etc. If you have issue with certain sources, please continue the discussion here substantively instead of repeating the same point over and over and warring your new version in. Clemper (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relative populations are not the normal way of weighing what is

WP:DUE and what is not. Please remember we follow what reliable sources say, and not what we know or believe about a subject. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, but you're sort of creating a straw man there by ignoring the other points made, one of which is that the US is the world's sole superpower and largest economy. The UK, the bulk of which rejected vaccine passports, is also among the most influential nations. The vaccine passport-rejecting bloc is at least as significant as the passport-adopting bloc, if not considerably more so. That the rejecting bloc is far larger in population is another supporting factor. This makes controversy one of the most significant elements of vaccine passports for the time being, until a consensus develops in favor of it which doesn't appear close to happening. Reliable sources describe this highly noteworthy controversy around and criticism/resistance to vaccine passports as summarized in the lede. Clemper (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, that's being a little silly - so it's original research to highlight the US and UK's adoption or rejection of vaccine passports more than say, Andorra's and Liechtenstein's? And again, it isn't the US alone. Reliable sources have documented without ambiguity that the highly notable events relative to vaccine passports have happened. Regardless of the importance one imputes to one country or another, only about 8-9 countries total that have either rejected or meaningfully adopted vaccine passports, so at this stage of the game, each one is notable, and few would argue the US and UK aren't worth mentioning. And again, it's the last two sentences in the last paragraph of the lead, implying a secondary importance to the basic definition and 'positive' (in the philosophical sense) elements of vaccine passports, which are allotted the first three paragraphs. Clemper (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not original research, so long as it's how the reliable sources cover it. But the significance of "blocs," the importance assigned to population, the determination of controversy significance could all be, if not directly supported in a reliable source. What concerns me is the big difference between "notable events" happening and assigning meaning thereto--I think we need the sources to assign that meaning. That's all. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think we're going to get that in any source though? "This event is more or less notable than events ABCDE, and the country/group of countries mentioned is more of less significant than ABCDE." The act of banning or canceling a thing by major world powers due to grave concerns and/or illegality is clearly noteworthy in an article on the thing. Clemper (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're noteworthy to the extent they're covered in the reliable sources. If we don't get it, it doesn't belong in the article. Also, I have grave concerns about this section: "Critics argue that existing COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission to others, that natural SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are protective against infection and death, and that PCR tests to detect an infection are not always accurate." The sources certainly support proposition 3, about PCR tests (although one from March of 2020 I don't see as terribly useful or relevant), but I can't find support for the other two propositions (viruses don't prevent infection/spread, and natural protection). Can you point me to that support? Dumuzid (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MuirchertachP why don't you lay out a valid reason for your edits here and we can reach consensus. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with MuirchertachP on this one: that proposition should really be cited to something. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Will happily provide better sources if needed. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me! Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MuirchertachP with your most recent edit I believe you are Wikipedia:Cherrypicking your arguments to create a POV slant on this article. It would be helpful for you to actually engage us in the talk rather than just edit willy nilly. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which is "most recent" per your comment, but I have qualms with the latest iteration of the "critics argue" language--namely that, while it is basically factually correct, I don't think anyone in that article can really be described as a "critic." MuirchertachP, any thoughts? Dumuzid (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are critics of the idea that vaccines (and thus vaccine-passporting of events, venues, etc.) would offer protection from infection and transmission, which is the primary basis for excluding non-vaccinated persons.MuirchertachP (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists and healthcare professionals are not critics - they are engaged in the scientific process, figuring out whether things work or not. The efficacy of many COVID-19 vaccines are overwhelmingly believed to be effective, and especially against hospitalization and death. You've chosen one article in which the argument about whether COVID-19 vaccines are effective or not is the discussion. The actual quotes from two people in the article actually just say we don't know long-term. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed it, because you're not too far off base, but "critics" still feels wrong to me. Everyone in that article supports vaccines in general, they're just discussing waning immunity and what to do about it. Would you be opposed to some more neutral language, like "It has been observed that vaccination does not prevent transmission....and critics argue it is a violation of civil rights..." or something like that? Dumuzid (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Editwaring. CaffeinAddict (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

How are scientists "not critics"? You do understand that the very essence of science is to criticize and overturn existing knowledge, right? No, they're saying that they don't prevent infection and transmission, not that it doesn't look like they do. MuirchertachP (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, please explain why you are removing the reasons for banning and cancellation of passports, which are explained in the sources cited. It could be for reasons not relating to vaccine passport controversy (such as the case of Ireland mentioned in the article, which was due to high vaccination coverage, not controversy/protest), which is what the paragraph deals with, and your reason of "brevity" doesn't hold water, since we're talking about 8 or 9 (relevant) words. I'd also like Dumuzid's opinion and welcome all other opinions. MuirchertachP (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumuzid, I'm fine with the "has been observed" wording, though I think the article amounts to criticisms of existing understandings (that continue to be perpetuated) that vaccines offer very strong protection against infection or transmission and by extension, of passports. MuirchertachP (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just point to the times that vaccines do not work and say "they do not prevent" infection. The various vaccines work a certain percentage of the time against infection (depending on the vaccine), and then they work a further majority percentage of the time against hospitalization and death. This is well described in

COVID-19 vaccines. CaffeinAddict (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, you absolutely can do that, since countries with over 90% coverage have record-high caseloads, higher than countries with low or no vaccination, and that's a cold fact not my opinion. Again, no is disputing that vaccines cut serious symptoms, but many are disputing/have accepted (including figures from major health agencies) that they do not prevent infection or transmission. But regardless of whether you or I can say that or have said it, reliably sourced notable critics have done so. Your main issue on this article seems to be that you want it to reflect your personal understandings around COVID and read like a promotional advertisement for vaccine passports, with a little bit of buried fine print about criticism/controversy at the bottom. But that's not what this article is, it is meant to generally describe the phenomenon: what they are, how/if they work, who wants them and why, who doesn't want them and why. The paragraph at hand is about controversy/criticism of vaccine passports, which has been heavy so far. We're going to describe (in very basic terms since it's the lede) the what, the who, and the why of the criticism and resistance. I understand you personally think it's misinformation, but notable critics in reliable sources have disagreed with you (including major EU and state health bodies) and that warrants mention in a paragraph about criticism. Understandings about COVID-19 are not static and can change over time, and during those shifts there will be heavy disagreement which there is now and which we are discussing. If no one else weighs in, I'm going to put that material back since I and Dumuzid are both OK with it. MuirchertachP (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MuirchetachP, while I understand and take your point about the progression of science, the colloquial use of the term "critic" is so ubiquitous that I think it can be misleading to use it this way. If someone were to say "the vaccine works 98% of the time" it would strike me as disingenuous to label this person a "critic who says vaccines fail on occasion," though an argument could be made this is technically true. By using critic as you had, here, it read to me as if the people in the article were critical of vaccine use itself, which does not strike me as true. Thanks for going with my compromise wording, which allays my concerns and (I believe) better represents the source. As ever, if consensus turns out to be against me, no worries. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Stat source and other sources describe a drop in breakthrough-prevention effectiveness not from 100 to 98%, but from 95% to 60% and as low as 25%. That's not on occasion (which might be defined as 6-12%(?) of the time or so, with less being rarely and more being regularly), that's failure most of the time or about as often as not. Again, no one is disputing the vaccines' substantial reduction of serious symptoms, but the primary basis of passports is to prevent infection from entering and spreading in the passported area, which is not being accomplished by the vaccines according to the critics. As for what critic refers to, I agree it could be described as criticism of the basis for vaccine passports, rather than the passports themselves, which is why I have no problem with your change in wording. Allowing this not completely directly related content is acceptable given that the paragraph leads with an indirect point about economic and social benefits of high vaccination rates (which in the case of COVID doesn't necessarily have anything to do with excluding non-vaccinated persons from areas via passports). MuirchertachP (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear--I am not arguing numbers, I am arguing syntax! I try to stay in my lane. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MuirchetachP you seem overly concerned with the lede - why don't you try to fill out the arguments and controversy section then if there's so much resounding evidence against. I also noticed you're a new editor please read through

WP:NPOV. CaffeinAddict (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, this article isn't a debate that you and I are having, it's a raw and objective description of something notable in the world. You haven't made any case at all why we shouldn't say (in just a few words) why the vaccine passports were cancelled (which is necessary since it might have nothing to do with resistance to vaccine passports, which the paragraph is about), and you don't have consensus that we can't provide any detail whatsoever about the criticism. MuirchertachP (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add another voice here, I agree with MuirchertachP and I think the paragraph "It has been observed that COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission" should stay, though a change in wording might be needed. As a compromise, we could add an adverb to "prevent", something like "It has been observed that COVID-19 vaccines do not fully prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission." Nsophiay (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be OK with some qualification as a compromise. I think "fully" is misleading since it implies something close to fullness, when it is a fact that the most-vaccinated countries are among the countries with the highest caseloads currently (suggesting very frequent failure of prevention), even if deaths are rare. I prefer "It has been observed that vaccines often do not prevent" "often fail to prevent" "frequently do not prevent" etc. While it could be taken wrongly, I still think "do not prevent" is the best because in this context, prevention would be assumed to be absolute or relatively close to it. And at the same time, it might be assumed that "do not prevent" means 90% prevention as much as 0%. The problem with qualification is that it's either arguably going to minimize or exaggerate what is being said. MuirchertachP (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring

WP:BRD. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You can't just say "they do not prevent" because of a statistical failure. These are not 100% vaccines - "they do not always prevent" would be a better wording. You're using definite language. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far, no one agrees with you on scrubbing the lede of all detail around the controversy. I'll add a compromise qualification.

I added "often do not prevent." This implies there is some prevention (as opposed to do not prevent, which could arguably taken as 0%; though I think it's more reasonable to take that phrase as considerably less than 100% and possibly much more than 0%), but nowhere near fully or always, which is what the critics have observed. 35, 50, 75% failure is absolutely "often" when we're talking about a disease. Even if one's goal were to promote vaccine passports (rather than be objective) I think "do not prevent" would be the best phrase. MuirchertachP (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You came into this article removing other language that you disagree with. I do not believe that you have consulted

WP:BRD would help you to understand why you shouldn't just continue to revert changes. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

CaffeinAddict, you're just being absurd now with your changes. The England plan was canceled due to worries over future economic harm and discrimination. The program was never even implemented so "may have occurred" isn't appropriate. You didn't even bother to check that before bending it to your liking, which I'd argue is euphemistic. Saying "worries over economic harm" by no means implied the harm happened, it means they were worried it might happen. I'm going to change the "often do not prevent" to "do not fully" since while I don't agree with it and think it's misleading given the very high failure rate, it seems likeliest to be the closest to consensus for now. MuirchertachP (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you fill out the arguments and controversy section, bring forth multiple arguments and criticisms and then they should be summarized in the lede, that's the whole point of the top of the page is it's a summary of the article. Focus on improving the article instead of a few sentences that are factually incorrect. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT which is what you're doing. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

These aren't arguments, these aren't debates, you repeatedly fail to understand that. This is an encyclopedia that provides descriptions of persons places things concepts etc. We are describing COVID-19 vaccine passports. A major element of them at the moment is support for them and controversy / resistance to them, roughly in equal measures. The controversy paragraph is an appropriate length and provides an appropriate level of basic detail around the controversy, which is fleshed out in greater detail in the body. Why you are resisting this so much (against consensus, which it appears you will never recognize) and junking up my talk page with all your warnings is beyond me. MuirchertachP (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I stand by my argument that the sentence should say "always" and not "fully". Fully implies an absolute - the effectiveness is not an absolute. Most times it works, sometimes it doesn't. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of my thoughts here. Remember for the vaccines in use in a lot of the world the effectiveness is still in a majority percentage. It's also hard to pin down exactly what is and isn't effective given the vaccines are in real world trials in real time. The other aspect is that the vaccines are not ineffective - so it's inappropriate to have definitive language like "critics argue that the vaccines do not prevent infection" rather that although they continue to prevent infection, illness, hospitalization and death majority of the time, they are sometimes ineffective. In relation to this article though - I don't get the point of what "critics" are trying to say. Are they saying that "because they don't always work we shouldn't even have vaccine passports?". What is the actual argument here specific to the article? CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question, regardless of one's views on the validity of the criticism in relation to prevention of transmission, does anyone here agree with Zefr's edit-summary characterization of the criticism as "off-topic"? If I don't hear back I'll assume no one agrees. CaffeinAddict, the argument is that if they don't (substantially) prevent transmission, they aren't doing what they're supposed to do, which is stop/block the spread of the disease. The recent literature indicates a 50-75% failure rate which essentially makes the passports a useless tool in that regard (esp for children, non-morbidly-obese people in their 20s/30s, etc., who are I would argue at a negligible risk of hospitalization), though valuable in preventing hospitalization when administered in vulnerable populations (who are already extremely heavily vaccinated, upwards of 90% in most Western countries). The many countries (the large majority in the world) that have shifted to an "endemic" view on COVID (rather than the zero-COVID fantasy embraced by Australia, Canada, NZ, and perhaps a handful of others) and rejected passports and lockdowns have already come to this conclusion. MuirchertachP (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Zefr's edit - the lede shouldn't be a battleground for argument, it should just summarize what the article is about. If you have all this recent literature why don't you take my continued advice and add it to the appropriate section. Otherwise you're just being disruptive. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the emphasis is slightly off here; I believe it's more appropriate to say that the vaccines are intended to prevent COVID-19 disease in individuals, and that stopping the spread, while obviously a goal, is more of a second order effect. We can certainly talk about how they aren't doing the latter as predicted, but to my mind, calling that "failure" doesn't seem quite right. As ever, happy to bow to whatever consensus may be. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you personally agree with and don't agree with CaffeinAddict, and I know you like very much that that sentence was removed, you've made all that eminently clear. I'm asking for a substantive explanation of how it is off-topic which was the basis for Zefr's edits. You haven't answered that. A short sentence explaining the basic elements of the criticism is only a battleground for you because you seem intent on minimizing/removing any content critical of vaccine passports (even if it's just an objective explanation of what the critics are saying), something I have not done here with (sourced) content that's favorable to them. And people who disagree with you aren't necessarily disruptive. If Zefr doesn't weigh in and explain his edits I'll consider them immaterial to the consensus being worked out here. MuirchertachP (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How much clearer can I make it? The lead of the article is (from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." You're talking in circles. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So further to that: the first paragraph is WHAT a vaccine passport is (in the context of COVID-19), the next is the WHY and the HOW, the next is the WHERE and the WHO, and WHERE vaccine passports increased vaccine uptake. And the final paragraph is another WHO paragraph on HOW and WHY certain jurisdictions are against them. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So by that logic, we can change the first sentence second paragraph to "The use of vaccine passports is based on public health/epidemiological principles." (An analog to your "Critics have raised scientific, ethical, and legal issues," where there is now no explication of the scientific criticism since Zefr/your unexplained edits). If we can have a sentence to explain why people think it works scientifically, we can have a sentence to say why people think it doesn't work scientifically. How is one sentence less "news-style" than the other? Please answer, and with a substantive response, not evasion. Explain what you mean by news-style there, or the statement is meaningless. MuirchertachP (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumuzid, the words failure and ineffective have only been used here, not in the article. The wording that Zefr and CaffeinAddict have been trying to remove is "[While they are generally considered effective] [which CA added today], vaccines do not fully prevent infection and transmission" ("do not fully prevent" being the compromise/consensus wording compared to "do not prevent" which you proposed and I think is better). MuirchertachP (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(these comments by me and Dumuzid were deleted by Zefr, presumably by accident; restoring)

Again, I would propose the key here again is disentangling our concepts: I would suggest something like "Studies have found the vaccines to be very effective in preventing severe disease and the need for hospitalizations, but have allowed for higher transmission rates than anticipated." Again, just a starting point idea. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumuzid, I agree; and that's basically what we already had before Zefr's unexplained removal as "off-topic" and CaffeinAddict's unexplained defense of it/criticism of it as "news-style." MuirchertachP (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I would want a fairly direct cite for my language, so do excuse my "spit-balling," as I was once wont to say. Still thinking! Dumuzid (talk) 19:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two main offtopic issues in this edit were 1) exceptions to vaccination, and 2) the comment about vaccine effectiveness, both of which are underlying issues not specifically about a passport itself, and therefore inappropriate for the lede, i.e., diffuse narrative. Follow the guide,

MOS:LEADNO. Zefr (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, then we can remove the promotional intro clause, "despite the economic and social benefits," Equally off-topic MuirchertachP (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of a vaccine passport? It’s to segregate unvaccinated people from vaccinated people so that businesses can continue to operate and avoid lockdowns because there’s a less likely chance of spread. So therefore, vaccine passports, with ample evidence improve economic and social problems caused by the pandemic. Not off topic if you ask me. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaffeinAddict -- While I definitely agree with you on the substance here, I have to admit that it does feel slightly

WP:SYNTH-y to state this so strongly in Wikipedia's voice. Could we all agree to reinsert this language with a qualifier like "perceived economic and social benefits" or "expected economic..."? Dumuzid (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is very valid and not my intention. I don't know if "perception" is the right word, but the idea here is there is "evidence" of economic benefits. This is after all, besides the health intentions one of the points of the vaccine passports - to avoid lockdowns were are widely written about to be bad for a country's economy. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is this; if we're going to go by Zefr's extremely spartan standard where no remotely oblique point can enter the discussion, that clause has to go too. If we're leaving it a little more open as it was, it can stay. So take your pick, either a [short] 1-sentence explanation of the scientific basis for criticism gets retained (with the "not fully prevent" qualifier allowable, which we reached a consensus on prior to Zefr), or the despite promotional clause goes, or we go back to the way it was and allow both of them (which I think is the best route; the lead had hardly gotten unwieldy). Otherwise it's picking and choosing and a clear breach of NPOV. MuirchertachP (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passports are mandated clearly for economic, social, and preventive reasons, which are not at all equivalent to vaccination exceptions or effectiveness. To suggest equivalence is a hollow argument. Zefr (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The despite line is about vaccines, not vaccine passports. You can't remove one sentence on that basis (on the effectiveness at preventing transmission, which is the primary basis for passports), and leave another (on social and economic benefits of vaccines, not of vaccine passports) without clearly violating NPOV. MuirchertachP (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I almost don't even know what you're arguing about anymore. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple. Zefr removed content (about the ineffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines at preventing transmission) on the basis that it did not directly relate to vaccine passports specifically, but rather to vaccines generally. Now you and Zefr are defending content (about the purported economic and social benefits of COVID-19 vaccines) that relates to vaccines generally, and not to vaccine passports specifically. If you can't understand why that's a problem, you're really not equipped to be here. It's a non-NPOV double standard, "to suggest otherwise is a hollow argument." MuirchertachP (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaffeinAddict, you haven't responded, or will there be more smug deflection? Nothing from Zefr either. MuirchertachP (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with a limited amount of content cited to RS that are about vaccine effectiveness or benefit but not technically about vaccine passports. If we're going to talk about effectiveness of a vaccine, it needs to be cited to

WP:MEDRS-quality sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Firefangledfeathers Thanks for your input. MuirchertachP - Vaccine passports and their use or non-use, the pros and cons of vaccine passports, and any other relevant information is the purpose of the article. If reliable scientific sources use lack of effectiveness of vaccines as a basis of argument that vaccine passports should not be used - that should be in the arguments and controversy section. Again, your focus on the lead section is misplaced. Fill out the arguments and controversy section and any relevant information should be summarized in the lead section. Do you understand the purpose of that section of the article? The lead section is to summarize the overall content of the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It might help to read

WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

So wait a second Firefangledfeathers, an RS can sufficiently substantiate the benefits of a vaccine (enough not to say claimed benefits, purported benefits, etc., but just "benefits"), but not the [claims by notable persons of] ineffectiveness??? An RS can only make a vaccine look good, and not bad or questionable? Is Wikipedia now sponsored by Pfizer or something? Setting that aside, the whole point of this debate is that we're talking about what the critics say, not what reality necessarily is. CaffeinAddict wants the page to conform to his/her version of reality, so deletes the mere reportage of criticism as "misinformation." The article is supposed to report what vax passports are and what is happening around them. Notable critics in reliable sources say that the vaccines pretty ineffective at preventing transmission, removing the prior basis for vaccine passports and rendering passported places no safer than elsewhere. If people want to learn what notable people at large say (critics and non-critics alike), they can do their own research or go to the COVID-19 vaccines WP page. MuirchertachP (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misconstrued my comment. If you re-read it and still feel your restatement is accurate, let me know and I'll try and use different words. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CaffeinAddict, the point is that you're picking and choosing and displaying flagrant non-NPOV. The economic and social benefits sources relate to vaccines in general, not vaccine passports. Similarly, the ineffectiveness sources relate to vaccines in general, not directly to vaccine passports; so what's the difference? I can't see one besides that you like what one says, and don't like what the other says. Yet again, the paragraph is about the critics and controversy of vaccine passports (and aspects of the vaccines that underpin them), not a statement of unequivocal fact. Yet you still won't let the very concept that the vaccines don't do much to prevent transmission or spread (which is now an uncontroversial fact to many people including major national health agencies) see the light of day. MuirchertachP (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although the term "vaccine passport" is the dominant term used in the media, many countries (UK, France, Italy, etc.) will issue a person one on the basis of a recovery or a negative test. It's a misnomer: it's not actually a passport (it's used mostly domestically) and it's often issued to unvaccinated people and there's all kinds of controversies about it.

Contrast a "vaccine card" which only a person with a vaccine can get (whether one country will accept another country's card is a whole other kettle of fish). It's an uncontroversial record of a vaccine. 2 shots of Pfizer given 7 months ago in the US means you're fully vaccinated. But fly to Israel with that vaccine card and you'd get put in quarantine in Israel--it's not sufficient for someone to get a "vaccine passport" there--you'd have to get a booster or prove a recovery from Covid. A negative test would get you a temporary "passport".

I think the subjects are sufficiently different to have two separate pages for them, so I'm against the merger. We're not also considering merging in the page on COVID-19 testing and pictures of those? Because a negative test will get you a "vaccine passport" in a lot of places. A test, a card, and a "passport" are not the same things.

BBQboffin (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good points. The certification or proof or record of vaccination has and continues to be merely that - a government or public health document that one is in fact vaccinated. In most places currently it stays as that - just proof, and isn’t actually used for anything else. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is to oppose the merge, though I agree that the card article has some issues. The subjects are fairly different. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as mentioned above, a vaccine card tends to be more of a medical record while a passport is explicitly used for proof of vaccination. There is definitely overlap, and maybe should have paragraphs about the other within them. bop34 • talk • contribs 19:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose - the vaccine card is not necessarily a vaccine passport, although it is being used that way in some places. The card might be analogous to the cards you receive after a doctor's appointment, reminding one of one's next appointment. Patches320 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC) strike sock -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice if we could hear A1's reasoning for this proposal. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]