I can assure you as a French person the economy is the least of our worries. Yes Macron is a criminal, but not for the reasons you say. We live in the 5th richest nation on Earth, that profits from pillaging its neocolonies all across the planet, so there is an abundance of resources to feed and house everyone if the government wanted it.
Of course the government, as any government ever, is an enemy of the people and wants to wage-enslave its population to benefit those who are already privileged.
>Japan, Korea and Taiwan way of dealing with the pandemic.
Which is extremely strict rules, everybody wears masks and socially distances. In Korea you can't even have more than 4 people get together without using the government website.
You know, Israel was the first country to require a vaccine passport to go to the gym. However they simply made it so difficult to avoid vaccination that everyone did it. I'm pretty sure the Israeli government is not in the business of sterilizing Jews, so, I would say it's probably safe. Take the vaccine and get the passport and go out. It's a benefit of living in a first world country.
Sounds more like autocracy to me. Whether or not you want to have a vaccine or not is irrelevant to the fact that wanting a government to coerce people into a medical treatment is a Pandora's box I'm not sure we should really be so keen on.
You can't assess these things (or anything in real world) alone, but in context of what's going on in the whole world (and what isn't). After that, its on everybody how they view their personal freedom and themselves vs the averaged good of the whole nation/civilization.
Who gets to define the greater good? We had share morals at one time with religion but that's been tore down relentless so what are those shared ideals now.
The fact of the matter is that eradication is impossible so what are we actually trying to achieve here. Reduce impact on health care? Maybe we should ban smoking and alcohol then or maybe MacDonalds, where is the line?
Well that's certain an answer. Voters and non-voters alike are, of course, free to define "the greater good" for themselves provided they refrain from harming others while putting their definition into practice, but what moral justification do the winners of an election have to enforce their definition on anyone else or harm others to implement it just because they were backed by an arbitrarily small majority of the voters? Which is a subset of the eligible voting population, and (perhaps more importantly) an even smaller subset of those who will be affected?
Religion should be torn down given its history of violence and support of ignorance and general attitude towards reality and science. Not violently of course but through education and critical thinking skills because it cannot survive under the light of the actual truth about the reality of things.
Requiring a vaccine isn't a "Pandora's box", if that were true we would have been a dictatorship decades ago when other vaccines were required. People have no perspective on anything these days or general knowledge about history.
