In article <skcqee$sof$1...@dont-email.me
As we suspected, eh?
I am not totally against the reasoning "because
it makes life easier for the bureaucrats". Gains
in efficiency are almost a good on their own.
However, when it is the case that only slightly
better planning would have obviated the need for
vaccinations among the unvaccinated, and in fact
released an essentially invulnerable group of
medical workers back into the workforce, I have
to call "foul". That's breaking the trust I
grant to those specialists and bureaucrats to
govern with wisdom and _respect for the governed_.
I don't believe that it would have been an odious
burden on them to have anticipated the need for
a database and have it in place early. It's not
even like the idea hadn't occurred to anyone.
When the bar I have set for you to earn my trust
is already pretty low and forgiving, you live up
to it if you want my cooperation. It isn't a
game. You don't spend your time finding out how
much you can push the bar lower. I'll feel you
pushing and raise it higher, not just give you
That's how I would hope all citizens view their
relationships with their governments. It's a
bit utopian of me to actually expect it, I
suppose, but that's no reason for me to let it