Alice wants to go on a date with Bob. Bob wants her to prove to him that she’s vaccinated.
Alice gets offended that Bob doesn’t trust her, and no longer wants to go on that date. Or if she’s actually invested, she offers to show the CDC card or health portal screenshot or some other low-effort indicator. Most likely outcome: Bob is lonely, Alice finds other dates.
In no case will there be an equilibrium where significant numbers of people ask for or perform the craziness you describe.
It’s a difficult process. This is important
Important also because it limits who can demand it. It’s almost certainly going to be measurably discriminatory against protected groups, which makes it a non-starter to ask for such a thing for any public or regulated commercial purpose.
My point is that there is no demand for this service. Very few organizations can deny service to people who don’t choose to waive their medical privacy rights (and those who can have already solved the permission and data-access problems). Individuals and under-the-radar organizations will be ignored (or arrested) if they demand it.
The whole idea is kind of dumb IMO, but regardless of that, it’s something that can only be implemented by governments, as they control both the supply (trusted credentials) and the demand (the ability to require it to receive benefits/entry/services).
See, my point is that it absolutely doesn’t need to be implemented from the top down. It can be done “peer to peer”, or “peer to organization”. There’s simply no need to create governmental infrastructure that already exists, and the Biden administration was wise to punt the issue.
I don’t get it.
Alice gets offended that Bob doesn’t trust her, and no longer wants to go on that date. Or if she’s actually invested, she offers to show the CDC card or health portal screenshot or some other low-effort indicator. Most likely outcome: Bob is lonely, Alice finds other dates.
In no case will there be an equilibrium where significant numbers of people ask for or perform the craziness you describe.
Important also because it limits who can demand it. It’s almost certainly going to be measurably discriminatory against protected groups, which makes it a non-starter to ask for such a thing for any public or regulated commercial purpose.
Obviously, this is a theoretical set up! Bob can be replaced by an organization, for instance.
Well, no. Most organizations would be sued to oblivion if they demanded this information.
My thinking as that this would be a service offered by organizations, not something demanded by organizations.
My point is that there is no demand for this service. Very few organizations can deny service to people who don’t choose to waive their medical privacy rights (and those who can have already solved the permission and data-access problems). Individuals and under-the-radar organizations will be ignored (or arrested) if they demand it.
The whole idea is kind of dumb IMO, but regardless of that, it’s something that can only be implemented by governments, as they control both the supply (trusted credentials) and the demand (the ability to require it to receive benefits/entry/services).
See, my point is that it absolutely doesn’t need to be implemented from the top down. It can be done “peer to peer”, or “peer to organization”. There’s simply no need to create governmental infrastructure that already exists, and the Biden administration was wise to punt the issue.