Yeah, some people actually go through the trouble thinking about what they sign off on and about the implications of their vote.

The poll was/is suggesting a highly unlikely, hypothetical and conditional scenario (2 conditionals actually), that is leading to the obvious (and on first sight reasonable) answer YES.
(It would also make the question irrelevant, as no passport would be needed).

I can’t answer in good faith NO to the exact question (even if it’s obvious to me and the pollster that the conditionals can’t be met).
And I am absolutely sure about that (Not ‘UNSURE‘).

Now Slowman himself post-hoc admits these conditions are unlikely/unrealistic to occur for the timeframe suggested.
Which then leads to the obvious ’endgame’ on how the tally was to be presented (also see played out above):

‘Most are in favor of a vaccine passport’,
(never mind these superfluous conditionals).

So, I would not be happy to have been counted as signing off on that predictable interpretation/presentation of my ‘YES’ ‘vote’.

I just see that Slowman had asked for input how to better word it as it went up.
My bad, I missed that.
.
Either way. Enjoyed how this predictably played out.
One got to hand it to Slowman, he is a convincing and great tactician, strategist, influencer. Chapeau!
.
.