Because people are rightfully hesitant to believe anything suspected liars tell them they need to do. The science is far from settled and Google banning doctors for discussing amongst themselves is as big of a red flag as can possibly exist.

If you ask most people on the right how the virus has affected them, their friends or family, they'll tell you the lockdowns and mandates have been 100x more harmful to their entire community, family and friends than the virus has been. This is an extremely common response.

Why would they do it?

They will do it because they are trying to save lives. They think they are doing harm by allowing people NOT to take the vaccine. After all, how many people will die by unvaccinated people spreading the disease? They have a duty to save other humans! That is what I think they believe.

My problem is that this is an overstep. They should stay in their lane, rather than mandating the health of their workers. If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not.

There's no reason to think they'll do this, though. You're just wildly speculating. The much more likely scenario is that they say "find a remote position at the company or leave".

And they're not so much "mandating the health of their workers", they're mandating that their workers don't harm other workers.

> If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol?

If enough people got wasted at work and hurt other employees as a result, they'd probably think about limiting alcohol at events at the office. That's a closer example to this vaccination requirement.

> If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not.

I would expect Google to ban alcohol consumption at work if this causes safety hazards. So the answer is yes.