That SCOTUS case would be quite interesting to watch.
Edit: moreover, the party that wants fewer restrictions on voting is the same as the party that wants people to get vaccinated. And the party that is desperately trying to stop as many people from voting as possible is also very pro-disease. So this seems like a pretty unlikely scenario.
That change in the US at least was also very contentious when it occurred, and subsequently every time the legal age was changed.
But say we decide that that is OK, which it appears most people have, they're still not really comparable because one is based on the assumption that you're too young to get inebriated responsibly, whereas this is proof you've had a medical procedure performed on your body. I'm sure you can see the glaring difference, one is significantly more extreme and invasive than the other.
If you believe they are, then I accept that we have different starting points but your reasoning is compelling under your starting point. If you believe they're not, then I think it makes sense to look for another explanation.
Are you going to pretend people are not being actively censored, banned, cancelled, fired for being vaccine-sceptical?
Do you not believe that the extensively-documented mass manipulation of public opinion is a thing?
If this is the fantasy land you want to base your reasoning in, then I accept that we have different starting points but your reasoning is compelling under your starting point.
The problem is that some folks are jumping to the conclusion that they are doing this because they want to sacrifice their own interests to increase profits for big pharma. Either this is for an altruistic reason (hah!) or big pharma is actually more powerful than those people (or, maybe, that isn't actually happening).
I know it's comfortable to think that the world's largest economy is entirely under control of three companies, but I see no compelling evidence that this is the case.
There is nothing loose about the US media and political establishments. If you watch mainstream media with any regularity you'd think it was two departments of one corporation.
> The problem is that some folks are jumping to the conclusion that they are doing this because they want to sacrifice their own interests to increase profits for big pharma.
I didn't see anyone make that claim. There are many extensively documented cases of collusion between government and media. 9/11 coverage, Afghanistan, and Iraq wars, virtually any coverage of foreign adversaries (Russia, China, Iran), vaccines, etc. being some obvious examples.
> I know it's comfortable to think that the world's largest economy is entirely under control of three companies, but I see no compelling evidence that this is the case.
Oh yeah, can't think of anything more comfortable to think of!
Even if we presume that advertisers are the only stakeholders (forgetting, let's say, investors), I'd disagree that pharma has a controlling interest in the media.
Nobody is disappointed that we didn't succeed. It would be great PR - "company X is saving the world" but it would not make us all that much money, considering how much world governments are paying for COVID vaccines.
I find the claims of big pharma manipulating to selling more vaccines dubious.
They only need more influence in key places like FDA and CDC, not more influence overall, to push health policies.
That said, this is a real phenomenon and worth bearing in mind when doing this type of reasoning.