In the essay offered for discussion, Clare Wenham reflects on the hot topic of civil rights discrimination against specific categories of society who do not have green passports from COVID-19. Vaccination has indeed become a sensitive topic of the last year, and the trends in this sense, as Wenham pointed out, are indeed dangerous. The societal threat is that people who have not been vaccinated because they are unavailable, delayed, or generally unwilling are exposed to global discrimination. They cannot re-integrate into society, attend public spaces, and, roughly speaking, be normal. The passage offered for reading is a compelling piece reflecting a sensitive maturing social threat.
It is not challenging to be convinced by Wenham’s arguments since the author has expressed thoughts resonating with many individuals all the time. Wenham uses Pathos as a tool of rhetorical persuasion, provoking the reader to think about the justice of green passports. For example, the author relates the pandemic to the prevalence of HIV and tuberculosis, which are relevant to a large group of people: as a result, this stimulates the reader to emotion through a sense of belonging to the audience for which Wenham is broadcasting. Wenham emphasizes the theme of social injustice through an argument about different levels of medical accessibility and even different recognition of vaccines. Put another way, communities do not have equal access to the vaccine, which means that some categories of citizens will always remain more privileged while others are more vulnerable. This is not hard to agree with, given the objectively perceived differences in the availability of medicine. Although, in reality, most of the vaccines used are equivalent, political lobbying and hidden economic benefits make some of them ineligible for green passports. In addition, Wenham points out that not agreeing to be vaccinated is also a reason for discrimination. It is hard to disagree with this since practice shows that anti-vaccinationists are a vulnerable group. Indeed, some people may consider unvaccinated individuals to be vulnerable, but the author shows that at the heart of this problem is a fundamental choice that is given to everyone.
However, it is fair to admit that not all readers may find Wenham’s view correct. The vaccination problem has made society bipolar, so proponents of green passports may see Wenham’s words as impulsive and exaggerated. This is not surprising since the author speaks of discrimination and the victimization of social groups when there is no particular basis for it — it is up to each individual to choose which cohort to belong to. In fact, one of the reasons for introducing certificates is to want to end the pandemic as soon as possible, and advocating against them may seem like the opposite action. In addition, Wenham is irrelevant in his data since vaccines are gradually becoming available to pregnant women and children, which means that social differentiation will be minimal. However, discrimination will remain relevant against those individuals who voluntarily refuse the vaccine, which cannot be ignored. However, discrimination will also remain against people who could not make this choice for reasons of low health care availability or other clinical reasons.
In conclusion, vaccination is still an essential social threat to equity and perceived justice. The low availability of health services, poverty, contraindications, and reluctance to get vaccinated set the stage for discrimination against such social groups. The introduction of green passports means that individuals without them will not be able to enjoy the same benefits as those who just got vaccinated. Clare Wenham, in his reasoning, described this problem in terms of the long-lasting social consequences for people without vaccination.