When the pandemic just began to march across the planet, and people - someone under duress, someone voluntarily - began to lock themselves in their homes, many felt that their usual life was behind. “The world will never be the same,” they wrote and said then. These words were uttered when they looked at how much nature was purified without man. When they mastered new online services. When we learned to hang out and celebrate birthdays in front of laptop screens. When they talked about the fact that numerous offices are no longer needed. “The world will never be the same,” people said, but they believed that you just have to endure a little, you need to wait for the vaccine, and your favorite bars will open, airplanes filled with tourists will fly to all parts of the world, and masks of different styles will remain in closets as a reminder of these strange times.
But a vaccine - and more than one - has appeared, and there is a risk that the world will really no longer be the same. The coronavirus pandemic caused so many problems and was so damaging that the governments of countries - including the so-called "developed countries" - began without much hesitation to abandon all the precious achievements of democracy, just to wipe out the damned infection. And here the question arises: are all means good in achieving this goal and what other "taboos" are we ready to cross in order to return to the usual way of life.
One of the most discussed topics after the start of vaccination was the idea of introducing so-called "COVID passports" - documents indicating that a person was vaccinated against coronavirus or had had it and has a sufficient level of antibodies. Those who promote this idea assume that previously introduced restrictions will not apply to the owners of such a document. Most often we are talking about the possibility of free border crossing. In particular, the director of the Gamaleya Center Alexander Gintsburg advocated such an innovation.
The topic received a new round of discussion on January 20, after the ombudsman for human rights in the Russian Federation Tatyana Moskalkova said that she considered the introduction of "COVID passports" a necessary measure in the fight against the spread of coronavirus.
“Given today's realities in the spread of COVID-19 and the restrictive measures taken, 'antique passports' at this stage are a timely and necessary condition in countering the pandemic,” she said. At the same time, the Ombudsman noted that it is necessary to protect the rights of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
This statement caused a great resonance. Thus, Anna Shafran, the host of Vesti FM radio, who has consistently opposed any attempts to impose COVID passports on Russians, said that such a measure would lead to segregation. She noted that we remember well how temporary measures became permanent before our eyes, and moderate restrictions turned into a worldwide collapse, so she has no doubt that "COVID passports", if they appear, will remain forever.
“For decades, mankind has fought for an accessible environment for people with disabilities and for respect for the feelings of various minorities, but in a matter of months it has come to the conclusion that people who are not vaccinated against covid are, in fact, preparing to be discharged from among full citizens. And no one is particularly embarrassed. It's an epidemic,”Saffron wrote on her Facebook page.
However, the speaker of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko hastened to reassure: according to her, there is no talk of the introduction of "COVID passports" in our country. “Of course, no" covid passports "are needed, of course. The point was that an electronic register of vaccinated people is being kept, this is correct, "she said.Matvienko stressed that no one will give people different rights only on the basis of the presence of antibodies.
And it would be good to calm down here, to believe Valentina Ivanovna. But we have not been living in Russia for the first day, and we are perfectly aware of the mechanism for making unpopular decisions: such initiatives are periodically thrown into the information field, the official authorities ardently and convincingly reject them, until one fine moment we read about the signed order in the news. Do you remember how long we were convinced that raising the retirement age was out of the question? And how did it end?
Therefore, of course, we will listen to what the leadership of the country tells us, but we will continue to watch our hands so as not to wake up one day in a brave new world.