The problem with that is that the majority opinion can be so fickle. In the mid-1950's in the UK the majority was opposed to the death penalty, following the execution of Ruth Elis. Ten years later, it had swung the other way following the Moors Murders.
There is an old joke about an establishment figure explaining why he is leaving Britain. He says (excuse the language) "200 Years ago, if you were a Nancy Boy, they would have hung you. 100 Years ago, you'd have got 14 years with hard labour. 50 years ago, they made it legal. I'm getting out of here before they make it compulsory". Of course, we know now or understand, that being gay is not a lifestyle choice, but that kind of thinking was prevalent 50 years ago. The collective ignorance of many, was almost along the lines of "Can I catch it off a door-handle"? in that period.
The legacy of that still survives in many parts of the world, and for populists in some countries, incitement to "queer bashing" is a good vote getter. If there is a homophobic majority in a country, it is because they fail to understand that being gay, is not a lifestyle choice, and just because there is a majority in favour of persecuting gays, does not make their actions acceptable.
I am unaware of any other country that is taking this skin popping approach. I've tried to find some research that supports this "study" in Phuket, and so far, have come up dry.
The only thing I did find was a research paper that said that the vaccines should be delivered intramuscularly, not subdermal.
"Like most other vaccines, the COVID-19 vaccine should be given intramuscularly. Muscles have good vascularity, and therefore allowing injected drug to reach systemic circulation quickly, bypassing the first-pass metabolism. Intramuscular injection of the deltoid muscle should be given along a line drawn vertically downwards from the mid acromion.The manufacturers advise that the vaccine should not be injected intravascularly, subcutaneously or intradermally. Injecting a vaccine into the layer of subcutaneous fat with poor vascularity resulting in slow mobilisation and processing of antigen leading to vaccine failure.The antigen may take longer to reach the circulation after being deposited in fat, delaying presentation to T and B cells that are essential for immune response. In addition, there is a risk that the antigens may be denatured by enzymes if they remain subcutaneously for prolonged period. Subcutaneous injections can lead to localised cellulitis, granuloma formation and abscess.
The COVID-19 vaccine has shown to have high efficacy if given correctly intramuscularly. Subcutaneous injection can happen inadvertently, affecting efficacy of vaccination and potentiate local adverse events. It is vital importance to reinforce intramuscular injection training with competency assessment at intervals in order to maximise efficacy and maintain public confidence."
Sorry @Shade_Wilder, but much of what you say is factually 100% incorrect.
Absolutely not. Either you're a signatory to any UN or any other convention or you're not - end of story. It's like being a bit pregnant - either you are or you're not.
Membership of the UN doesn't mean acceptance of every UN Convention, under any circumstances, unless you sign and ratify them - if it did there'd be no point in having signatories.
Again, absolutely not. They are 100% "legally binding" but the reality is that they can't be enforced, which is very different.
Absolutely and completely wrong on all counts. The US tried to get approval from the UN Security Council for war with Iraq and it was rejected - not by three countries out of the five permanent members, but by the Security Council. There's no partial approval, where "both sides were correct".
Rather obviously, it depends on who you ask - you'll get very different answers from Russians or Chinese to Westerners.