reflexion 74, 19.12.21, vaccination pass, public health executives, compulsory vaccination

Marc Salomone / blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The Two Forms, ed. Amazon

Paris, Sunday December 19, 2021

REFLECTION ON THE ROLE OF THE NETWORKS OF EXECUTIVES WITH THE VACCINE PASS.

The function of compulsory vaccination is to:

1- Bring the vaccination of the population into conformity with the medical vaccination obligation.

2- Allow the vaccination of the entire population

3- Allow the executives concerned to act publicly to this end.

The government thinks it can achieve the same results as compulsory vaccination by strengthening the "go-to" approach from the introduction of the Vaccine Pass to convince the six million unvaccinated people who are officially recognized to put the vaccine on. Hospital saturated and hamper ordinary care.

This nebula of six million people has been and continues to be stuffed with legal gibberish about:

1- Personal freedom and the fundamental principles of law.

2- The defense of the rights of the peoples of the South to dispose of the vaccines that are stolen from them by the users of the aforesaid in the North.

The government sets as a reference the remarkable vaccine mobilizations that have occurred with each call from the President of the Republic; again in December.

However, the shift from a target population made up of decent people to one made up of people gathered in ruse changes the situation.

1- Going towards a volunteer status, including for local notables, had its function as long as it was a question of compensating for a lack of information, for forgetting or honest fears.

2- The move towards refractory populations dominated by militant directives modifies the legal situation of the interveners.

3- Among the populations in the process of vaccination in December, there are very few first-time vaccinated.

From the moment it is a question of a stable group, made up of people who know how to be a political issue, who understand well to assert it, who are the ideological hostages of parties or lobbies, the operation of conviction can no longer escape the legal qualification of the interveners.

The absence or insufficiency of legal qualification will be constantly opposed to them by their interlocutors and their public representatives.

In this case, convincing is the affirmation of a specific authority and requires a right to present oneself for the exercise of that authority.

Consequently, outbound operations can only approach these populations if the people who support them have legal titles to assert in order to impose on the attention of these people, of these collectives, their presence, their arguments and their vaccine solution.

Passed the layer of the unconscious and cowards, whose number should not be overestimated, how can people without rights or titles for this intervention, since vaccination is not obligatory, on the one hand be able to present themselves to them for retain their time and attention and on the other hand lead them to any discipline whatsoever?

Apart from a few spectacular operations, mounted by government backers, no network of executives will venture to:

1- To impose its presence on these motivated people, which is an undue intrusion in their private life, a harassment.

2- Describe to them the effects of the Vaccine Pass, which in this case constitutes a threat.

3- Assure them that they are obliged to be vaccinated, which is a violation of a law which guarantees freedom of choice.

How many elected officials, prefectural or social security officials, doctors, firefighters, etc. will they risk it?

From the moment when the all-rounder is no longer a blueberry, interventions can only be made by interveners with legal titles.

The experience of European countries having introduced compulsory vaccination shows that by itself it does not cause a notable rise in vaccination in populations of refusal.

It must be associated with the decisive function of the networks of executives responsible for public health.

It can no longer be the responsibility of personal, voluntary and voluntary mobilization.

As such, the vaccination pass can be more effective because it is better accepted by the population.

This efficiency will come from this double quality:

1- Public primacy from a medical point of view over personal choices.

2- Legal organization of the intervention of the networks of executives concerned with public health.

This is what the law on the Vaccine Pass must provide.

It is illusory to think that the field executives will move outside the law by giving the impression that their interventions are governed by the rights of friends.

Marc SALOMONE