Explaining the uselessness of the Covid vaccine passport in a way even idiots can understand

Do you support this? I'm talking to you. Yes, you. I'll leave you without any arguments, speechless.

We are in February 2025. I received a message from someone asking for help. “I’m a nutrition student in my third semester, and my dear college requires all vaccines for me to be allowed to do my internships. I really don’t know what to do.”

Right after that, a doctor shared another report. He explained that Santa Casa de São Paulo is still requiring Covid vaccines from patients to be eligible for surgeries. Don’t want to get vaccinated? No surgery. Die right there.

Many other places are likely still enforcing these mandates at this very moment. This is my motivation for writing this text. I am against pointless oppression. Well, at least pointless from a public health perspective—but very useful for generating demand for the big pharmaceutical corporations that manufacture these vaccines.

The people reading this article

When I put in the title that I would explain this in a way even idiots can understand, I was making a provocation. Yes, there are many idiots out there, but I know not all readers of this article fall into that category. Here, I will encounter three main types of readers:

The first group consists of those who are already against this coercion. They will read to better understand my arguments and see what references I am using, so they can reinforce their own positions against these mandates.

The second group includes people who never really thought about the issue. They simply accepted the mandates without question, believing they were for the greater good. Maybe by now, they have some doubts about the effectiveness of these measures but still see them as a valid attempt during a critical moment of the pandemic, marked by so many deaths.

The third group consists of those who still support this coercion. In general, these are people who consider themselves well-informed, intellectually superior, and believe they are "defending science" against barbaric anti-science denialists. To them, vaccine passports were based on the most rigorous science available. They are the ones who label anyone questioning coercion as “anti-vax.” And these are the people I call idiots.

Do you support this? Then I am talking to you. Yes, you. I know you’re not here to reflect or reconsider your position. You’re reading just to try to find an inconsistency, a logical flaw, so you can claim victory, right?

Well, my personal satisfaction comes from seeing people like you, who think they are extremely intelligent, end up speechless by the end of this text. Because there will be no inconsistencies to point out, no argument to refute.

And I know that even then, you won’t change your mind. Admitting that those you called crazy were actually right? To you, that would be worse than death.

I know how you think

Yes, I know. To you, Covid-19 vaccines represented a collective pact. And why do you think that? Because you believe they reduce virus transmission. So, you think it’s fair to force others to take them, since, in your view, this protects society as a whole. The old idea of "doing your part to protect others."

But let me tell you something: you were deceived. Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent or reduce virus transmission. In other words, this supposed collective pact never existed. Taking them has always been a purely individual decision. From a public health perspective, it makes no sense to mandate them.

Do you know how they tricked you? When they hammered the idea that getting vaccinated was an act of empathy and social responsibility, they weren’t basing it on scientific evidence. It was just marketing. Before the vaccines were even released in 2020, researchers at Yale studied which messages would be most effective in convincing people.

"It is even more effective to add language framing vaccine uptake as protecting others and as a cooperative action" the scientists wrote in their study. And that’s exactly what they did, without caring whether it was true or not.

At this point, you might argue that I haven’t yet proven that vaccines don’t prevent transmission—I’ve only shown that there was a marketing strategy before their release. And you would be right.

But here’s another problem. I could present you with dozens of studies showing that vaccines don’t reduce transmission, but I know it wouldn’t matter. You might think that I cherry-picked studies that support my position and ignored others.

You might think this because that’s exactly how people deceive us when they talk about "science." Who hasn’t seen a conspiracy theorist claiming the moon landing was faked, trying to "prove" it with calculations about the Van Allen radiation belt? In the end, the astronauts went, returned, and lived for decades after that.

Just as I never deeply studied the Van Allen belt, you haven’t deeply studied whether Covid vaccines reduce transmission. That’s because you probably took the vaccines, so the issue stopped mattering to you. We both know the astronauts went to the moon, and you know that vaccine passports were implemented, so your reasoning is basically this: "If they implemented the passports, there must have been a reason."

But I know how you think. You believe that "science" has a hierarchy and that major institutions gather the best scientists to make the best decisions. You believe that among the pollution of thousands of studies by various scientists, the truth lies within the institutions. After all, those inside have followed everything closely and know all the details.

Well. Here is a document from Emer Cooke, Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), responding to a European Parliament member and making it clear that vaccines were not approved to reduce transmission: "You are indeed correct to point out that Covid-19 vaccines have not been authorised for preventing transmission from one person to another. The indications are for protecting the vaccinated individuals only", replied her.

“EMA’s assessment reports on the authorisation of the vaccines note the lack of data on transmissibility”.

The EMA is the European equivalent of the FDA in the U.S. When faced with a direct question, they couldn’t invent a study. The data is lacking.

Even those who ardently defended the vaccine campaign as it was have changed their argument. Now they say: "But they prevent hospitalizations and deaths."

I know your next argument

Now you must be thinking: “But it’s still a collective pact! If it reduces hospitalizations and deaths, it saves money in the public healthcare system, which everyone pays for.”

I won’t go into the details here about the actual impact of these vaccines on reducing hospitalizations and deaths, how long this protection lasted, or whether there was an increase in other diseases. That’s not my problem. I chose not to take them.

But for the sake of debate, let’s assume that yes, they do reduce hospitalizations and deaths.

Now you might argue: “If we mandate vaccination, the cost to the healthcare system decreases for everyone.”

Sounds reasonable, right? But follow me here. This opens the door to banning, for example, pork cracklings at the bar. Or fried foods in general—French fries, croquettes, empanadas. Everyone knows that ultra-processed foods increase the risk of heart disease, overburdening the healthcare system.

And alcohol? More than 40% of traffic accidents involve drunk drivers. How much does that cost in rescues, hospitalizations, and surgeries? How about we bring back Prohibition like in the U.S. in the 1920s? That worked out great, didn’t it?

If the criterion is saving money in the healthcare system, how far do we go? You might say the focus should only be on transmissible diseases.

So let’s talk about that. In Brazil, less than 0.5% of the population has HIV. But among gay men, that number jumps to an astonishing 25%. Yes, 1 in 4 gay men in São Paulo has HIV.

Try looking up the monthly cost per AIDS patient in Brazil. No one wants to make that calculation public because it would stigmatize this population. And I absolutely understand that keeping it private is the right approach.

But before we go on, let me make an observation: Of course, stigmatizing unvaccinated people—creating a climate of persecution against those who refuse the Covid shot—is completely acceptable and ethical, isn’t it? “Stupidity is authoritarian. These idiots are the ones who end up in hospitals, infect doctors, overcrowd healthcare units, and it’s society that pays for their stupidity,” said Dr. Drauzio Varella, who thinks he’s a genius.

Now, back to the cost of AIDS treatment. In the U.S., it’s easier to find the numbers. There, treating each person costs between $1,800 and $4,500 dollars per month, for life. In Brazil, the treatment is fully covered by the public healthcare system.

So, does anything go when it comes to saving money on healthcare? If in your idiotic opinion it does, then we could, for example, criminalize homosexual sex. How about that? Plenty of countries already do it. And I must say, it would be an easy campaign to run. We could use religious rhetoric—wouldn’t that be great?

Imagine a TV commercial. We show a child in an underfunded school. “Because of the sin of gays, there’s no money to provide this child with an education.” Do you approve of this ad? In no time, the population would start doing its part—invading LGBTQ+ hotspots with crucifixes, calling everyone sinners. And for the good of society, mayors would find a way to shut down these “AIDS-spreading” places.

We could keep going with authoritarian examples of cost-saving measures in public health. How about banning rock climbing, hang gliding, paragliding, and all extreme sports? Every now and then, we see people getting injured doing these activities, requiring difficult rescues involving many people and even helicopters. How much does that cost? Cheap? “While there’s no money for your aunt’s surgery,” we could write in an ad.

Didn’t find any inconsistencies to claim victory? No arguments left? I have a quick solution that will bring you comfort. Just say: “anti-vax propaganda,” and go back to watching your soap opera while pretending coercion was never a problem.