The same brand of ‘successes’ can be achieved by banning alcohol, tobacco, fast food or whatever vice you want.

Those who are downvoting this are being blatantly disingenuous. Tobacco alone kills over 480,000 people per year in the US. There is a very strong case for banning it if your fundamental concern is the health of others and the upkeep of the health system.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...

Alcohol kills another 95,000 per year in the US

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...

Obesity related deaths are around 300,000 per year.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192032

No one can honestly look at these figures and come away with with the opinion that we need to protect the unvaccinated from themselves through mandates while turning a blind eye to these other self inflicted diseases. Argue for or against limiting personal choice to preserve health but be prepared to defend your position on all of these fronts.

Let's start with the simplest: tobacco. There is no way to make it disappear, you can only make it illegal. Our experiments with making other addictive drugs illegal had been a complete failure, I doubt you could even find convincing research that shows that making them illegal has led to less deaths due to them. Whereas vaccine passports appear to actually work. That is a major difference.

I think it’s still too early to draw conclusions about how effective vaccine passports are. There is still a significant proportion of people not accepting them, there is also another group who have been vaccinated but are now protesting the use of vaccine passports, and with the requirement of a third shot and the potential requirement for a fourth or continuing boosters we cannot know how the sizes of those groups will change. If vaccine passports become permanent my money is on it following a similar progression as prohibition or the war on drugs, it will eventually become a law that everyone flaunts. The human cost will depend on how much violence the state is willing to pursue enforcing laws that no one wants. If history is a reliable measure it will be horrific, biased, and long lasting.

I take issue with this comparison: just because the prior 'experiments' have been failures does not mean that future efforts which utilize entirely different methods will be. The war on drugs was already highly criticized for its ineffectiveness on several accounts: there is definitely a way to eradicate the problem, but those were not it and even people at the time knew it.

What methods would you suggest? My parent said "ban tobacco".

To be clear I was not advocating banning all of those things, I was saying that mandating vaccines is as counterproductive as trying to revive prohibition or enforce weight loss.

Which is why, in absolutely the same vein, there are regulations to incite people to consume less of those things - e.g. little branding, serious warnings and graphic pictures of the long term damage on tobacco packaging; a ban on advertisement for tobacco products; serious warnings and limitations on the advertisements for alcohol products; warnings/good advice on food-related advertisements, etc. etc.

And all of those, including the vaccination passports, work and achieve their goals.

Why do we accept mere warnings and labels on everything else, but vaccines are supposed to be mandated? That's a double standard and hypocritical. Let governments keep advertising and let people make their own decisions.

I’m not sure if I would consider the vice of drinking alcohol quite the same as the vice of infecting and potentially killing other people.

Every day 28 people die in the US from drunk driving crashes

https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

261 per day from excessive alcohol use

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/features/excessive-alcohol-death...

Alcohol consumption directly affects people who do not consume it in a multitude of ways from the monetary cost of increased demand on the health care system, police, prisons and damage to public property to the emotional and psychological burden of interacting with the inebriated or dependent to the physical impact of abuse and accidents caused by intoxication.

I for one fully support a complete ban on humans manually operating motor vehicles as soon as we can get to self driving cars.

A scarier argument that I saw yesterday was something called a welfare check or something in which a police officer and a jail doctor can just declare you something like insane and you no longer have any medical autonomy.

You don't have to reach for hypotheticals about how we will ban people from eating a second cookie or a full size candy bar. This is the law we have today. People with mental health issues apparently have effectively no rights. Imagine making the wrong people angry and you end up drugged up in a strait jacket... Or if you want to go conspiracy theorist, a specific set of photos appears in your iCloud account and you face prison time where you are very likely to face abuse from the guards and other prisoners alike. This is also the reality we already have, no need to reach for hypotheticals.

Drunk driving is very illegal. If we could identify unvaccinated people who infected others and punish that with jail time, would you be happy about that?

Would the people who were infected even want to press charges? Assuming they were vaccinated, they would probably have an extremely mild case, if they were unvaccinated then they would essentially be arguing a case against themselves.

Would you also jail the folks ho were vaccinated but still infected others?

No. I don't even have a strong opinion about punishing people for infecting others through negligence. But I think it is worth bringing up whenever anti-vaxxers bring up alcohol and drunk driving.

To be clear, I am not opposed to vaccines. I think the current vaccine is the best option for people at high risk of negative outcomes due to COVID. What I am opposed to is coercion by the state on something that is a personal choice. Calling this argument “antivaxx” is another example of the disingenuous way people are behaving. It’s a smear campaign that is being parroted without any critical thought.

Cool. But the argument "we let people drink alcohol despite harm caused to others" is a bad one.

I think alcohol might be even more dangerous to others than being unvaccinated. Violent drug users are well known ending up in fights and even causing death or permanent damage when they attack randomly at others during night. Or even kill them sometimes. So I think we should apply the new standard to it and ban it totally.

And we have laws to hold people accountable when under the influence, they do something bad and affect someone else.

That’s a fantastic idea: Start holding the unvaccinated criminally responsible, if they’re the likely point of infection for someone else.

Thanks for the idea.

Vaccinated people also spread covid. The #1 population-level defense against infection disease is self-isolation on symptoms onset. It is possible that vaccinated people spread covid more aggressively than unvaccinated, because the vaccines dull the symptoms to a point where they don't trigger the 'stay at home' signal anymore.

That’s like saying sober drivers can cause accidents.

It’s the likelihood, and willful the personal choice that leads to a higher of incident which society decides whether or not to tolerate.

Those that admit they are drunk and take an Uber instead of driving do not cause accidents. It's the 'Oh, it's just a couple of beers (narrator voice: and two vodka shots, and three martinis.)' that choose to drive while impaired that cause most of the accidents.

Yes, because they chose not to drive while drunk. If the uber driver kills someone while driving, that’s not on the person who hailed the uber.

Someone who infects another after getting vaccinated falls into the same bucket.

They did their due diligence by being responsible. The infector in that case isn’t at fault.

In your analogy, the vaccine is the taxi driver.

We also hold sober drivers accountable when they cause accidents. Why not vaccinated people when they spread the virus?

Only when they do something reckless, like look at their cellphones or sleep on rhe wheel. Or speed or blow a red light.

Otherwise it’s civil penalties at most

So staying unvaccinated counts as reckless now?

Are you saying that it’s a responsible decision, one that won’t have consequences for people who cannot get vaccinated?

I'm saying it could be a responsible decision for the person making the decision.

The false premise that we should care about other people's health is annoying at this point. The vaccinated can still spread the virus, so we should make the decision to get vaccinated for ourselves, and those who don't make the orthodox decision should not be vilified.

What makes it a false premise?

People are quite tired of the unvaccinated who choose to opt-out without medical or traditional religious reasons; it’s worn thin because the decision affects people who want to get vaccinated but can’t.

You don’t have worry about government mandates, though that’s inevitable.

The unvaccinated won’t be able to find a job; or even conduct business the way things are going.

And soon, you won’t get ICU beds either. These choices have consequences.

It's a false premise because those who would like to get the vaccine, but can't, can voluntarily do things to make sure they don't contract COVID. Instead, they clamor for governments to force people to do something so that they are not inconvenienced.

A lot of the consequences of those choices are artificial. They are authoritarian measures designed to elicit compliance, not natural consequences.

Also, the very fact that there are people who can't get vaccinated means that the vaccines are dangerous. You have decided that the folks who decide to skip the vaccines are doing so because they don't get it, when in reality, a lot of them probably understand the dangers. While the people who can't get vaccinated would be merely inconvenienced by changing their lives to avoid the virus, those who take the shot could have life-changing consequences.

Also, you claim that people like me will not be able to get a job. I laugh at this. There is already a hospital that won't deliver babies because they can't get enough staff after so many quit over a vaccine mandate. If you and the authoritarians push us out of the economy, be prepared for the consequences. The natural consequences.

We'll see how long the mandates last.

> It's a false premise because those who would like to get the vaccine, but can't, can voluntarily do things to make sure they don't contract COVID. Instead, they clamor for governments to force people to do something so that they are not inconvenienced. > A lot of the consequences of those choices are artificial. They are authoritarian measures designed to elicit compliance, not natural consequences.

Kids 11 and under can’t get vaccinated. Not because its dangerous but because our agency is being extremely thorough.

These same kids cannot do anything to mitigate, when they are also in class throughout the day.

Oh and masking? That largely prevents spread. by the infected; not so great at preventing someone masked from getting infected. Also, even this level of temporary mandate is being fought.

Meanwhile and this point hundreds of millions (billions) of shots; and the risk factors are well-known. Yet this information doesn’t seem matter.

> Also, you claim that people like me will not be able to get a job. I laugh at this. There is already a hospital that won't deliver babies because they can't get enough staff after so many quit over a vaccine mandate.

Good luck working when insurance companies forces high premiums.

> If you and the authoritarians push us out of the economy, be prepared for the consequences. The natural consequences.

This is a veiled threat. I’m not an authoritarian at all, but in any society it’s give and take.

Some want all of the benefits of society without doing their part, and that will have natural consequences as well.

That isn’t a threat. That’s just the market correcting itself because it can’t support the level of welfare you’re advocating.

> Kids 11 and under can’t get vaccinated. Not because its dangerous but because our agency is being extremely thorough.

Kids 11 and under are in basically zero danger from COVID.

> Oh and masking? That largely prevents spread. by the infected; not so great at preventing someone masked from getting infected. Also, even this level of temporary mandate is being fought.

When masks are worn properly and changed often. That does not happen in the real world. And cloth masks are largely ineffective against viruses like COVID.

> Meanwhile and this point hundreds of millions (billions) of shots; and the risk factors are well-known. Yet this information doesn’t seem matter.

There is a difference between "heavy testing" (what COVID vaccines have gotten) and proper testing. Proper testing includes heavy samples over a long period. We haven't had a long enough period.

> Good luck working when insurance companies forces high premiums.

Insurance companies will not raise premiums any more than they have to because insurance is heavily competitive. If people start cancelling insurance plans because they raise the premiums on the unvaccinated, you can bet they'll acquiesce.

> This is a veiled threat. I’m not an authoritarian at all, but in any society it’s give and take.

Not a veiled threat. I'm talking about the consequences of locking 10% or more of the able people out of the workforce. The economy will suffer. A natural consequence.

> Some want all of the benefits of society without doing their part, and that will have natural consequences as well.

> That isn’t a threat. That’s just the market correcting itself because it can’t support the level of welfare you’re advocating.

I know it's not a threat, but again, the market will correct itself the other way: if people won't work, the mandates will magically disappear. If insurance is not bought, the surcharges will magically disappear.

Why not apply that to also vaccinated people?

You will go to jail for repeatedly driving drunk even if you never have an accident.

Do you also want prison time for unvaccinated people who repeatedly go out in public? I support you if you do.

No, but clearly many people do.

I don't think we should make distinction if person spreading virus was vaccinated or not if we start to punish for that. That should not affect the punishment or how guilty person is. I see absolutely no reason why being vaccinated should protect you from criminal charges in case we start to charge for spreading covid. The person is as guilty without or with vaccine. They should have gone be tested or taken actions to not spread it.

Thank you for your reply. My question was because I got a ticket for having an open container in the back seat of the car while I was stranded on the side of the road.

They did the breathalyzer several times on me, zero each time. I didn't have a drop to drink. I didn't cause an accident. I was not driving recklessly. In fact, I was stopped on the shoulder.

If I have to pay almost five hundred dollars in fines and court fees even though I didn't do anything other than drive a friend's car home, I don't see why people who refuse to take the vaccine for no reason shouldn't have to pay even if we don't have any proven incidence they spread the disease.

Point is, our legal system is very inconsistent and you can't scare me with the slippery slope like today covid vaccine and tomorrow I am in legal trouble for a second serving of fries.

If vaccinated people can spread the virus, which they can, going to a bar they can also infect and ‘kill’ people. So yes, it’s pretty much the same.

You’re clearly trolling here.

The virus is an invisible agent spreading exponentially throughout society, putting the health system under a massive stress. That’s of course not what smoking, drinking, or over-eating is about…

No, these only put the health system under stress that we are used to. Remember that story about that guy in Mississippi who had trouble finding an ICU bed? If you look at the real data it turns out the vast majority of these beds are not in use by people with covid, but by people with other problems, like heart diseases. You know, the problems caused by that lifestyle that’s a-ok because we’re used to the problems it causes.

The difference is that in a very short period of time, numerous people can end up with the virus. The diseases you listed are distributed over the year. You don't see thousands of people getting a heart attack in a week in the same area. COVID puts the healthcare system at risk because it is a sudden surge of cases which ends up being overwhelming.

What is the difference with ‘we’re used to it’? The things you describe also apply to the flu, yet no one would consider requiring vaccination cards for that. It just turns out there already are beds for people that get that because we are used to it.

The flu doesn't require as many ICU beds. Nor do you need to stay weeks or months in the hospital because you had the flu.

>Considering that's the main goal of such policies, it seems like a success.

The ends justifies the means right?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In a democracy there is a way to make your point for every particular case in question: voting. Or demonstrations, which were held against Covid measures basically since the first wave all across democratic nations.