Well, they're both impositions on freedom. But semi-forced medical procedures imposed in an emergency and likely driven by special interests are genuinely concerning. Organising protests over seat-belts - while logically defensible - just makes people look stupid.

So in principle, you shouldn't be fined for either. But the vaccine mandates are a hill worth fighting over.

But unlike seat belt laws, it's not forced. And unlike seat belt laws, it should be, because it affects the health of other people.

Seatbelt laws shouldn't be forced either. But nobody is going to fight seriously over that because it is inconsequential and non-invasive.

They are not a justification for mandatory vaccination, in an emergency, with what is turning out to be an unknown risk and efficacy profile.

> But unlike seat belt laws, it's not forced.

Good. Keep it that way. But speaking from Australia, the truth of that statement is very context-specific. The government will presumably fine me if I attempt to go for a pub lunch without my smartphone, because then there isn't a way to prove to them that I have been vaccinated. This is a bad, indeed a concerning, thing.

right, that's my point!

> But semi-forced medical procedures imposed in an emergency and likely driven by special interests are genuinely concerning. Organising protests over seat-belts - while logically defensible - just makes people look stupid.

I'd say both makes people just look stupid, especially when using phrases like "driven by special interests".

Yep. And one of them is a cause which is worth looking a little stupid for while standing up for freedom, because it is an issue where it is more important to be right than to look like part of the crowd. The other one isn't - being seatbelts.

I argue that the fight needs to start with the most unjustified measures. seat-belts, helmets etc.

As long as you have those in place it's only consequential that more protective measures are in place as well - i.e ones that actually do have an protective impact on society

If your plan is to start with the least consequential issues, you should reconsider the plan. Start with the important stuff, work down to the nice-to-haves. Nobody gets everything that they want.

no, it's not about "least consequential" but about "most unjustified". as long as you have even more unjustified measures in place, you will have a hard time fighting the less unjustified

> Why can I be forced to use seatbelts and vaccine skeptics are not forced to get the shot?

This is a good question.

While I'm 100% for people getting the vaccine, I personally believe that forcibly vaccinating people is a dangerous precedent to set.

Anti-vaxxers like to argue "body autonomy" against vaccine mandates, which is a distortion because you actually do have body autonomy. No one is forcibly vaccinating you. It's just that choice comes with consequences. And for people who are bad at risk analysis, irrational, prone to suggestion, selfish or some combination of the above, they simply don't like there being negative consequences to their actions.

What I find particularly ironic is there seems to be a strong overlap between "body autonomy" anti-vaxxers and those that would deny a 15 year old rape victim from getting an abortion at 7 weeks.

As an "antivaxxer" (not by any reasonable use of the word, but that seems to be the state of the language right now), I would not deny any rape victim from getting an abortion. I don't think I've observed this overlap you mention, other than being referenced in comments like yours.

(I'm sure there are traditional pre-2020 antivaxxers out there, I just never come across them in real life)

On bodily autonomy, I see a lot of this "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!" kind of argument. Sure, technically nobody is using immediate physical force. By some strict literal interpretation, you are correct. I don't think that's what people have in mind when they say bodily autonomy though.

It's bothersome that people who otherwise make sense equate these two things and totally miss the point about one personal decision having ramifications for society, while the other does not. The elision of that crucial point, or the intentional mixing of all regulations as being equally public necessities, helps prove to vaccine skeptics that rule-thumpers have no respect for individual choices and detracts/distracts from the actual harm that antivaxers do. And it's a position usually put forth by those in favor of public health controls.

If people can't separate emergencies (temporary) from other conditions, or the things that only affect one person from those that affect society, and use the virus and vax campaign as an excuse to reduce individual choice in a permanent way - by of all things, tying it to laws against harmful personal vices or other stupid choices - they will be speaking to their own echo chamber of fellow virtue signalers without accomplishing either of their supposed aims.

the point here is that It seems entiterly arbitrary to enforce seat-belts but not enforce vaccine-shots.

in a constitutional state mandates should not be arbitrarys, that's a defining characteristic actually.

so either you have seatbelt laws and vaccine mandates, or you have no vaccine mandates, but also don't enforce seatbelts.

then if you decide to enforce seatbelts, where do you stop? smokeing, obesity, extreme sports, going outside without a proper reason ... you needed to outlaw all of these "risky-activities" for the good of society then!

One difference is that you can decide to stop wearing your seatbelt if we learn at some point that seat belts are actually more harmful than helpful.

Rather than saying if we mandate one thing, we should mandate everything, we could just evaluate each of them individually. And since that's what we actually do, and these decisions are made by different people at different times (because of elections, appointments, etc), some inconsistency seems inevitable.

How dare you be logical on the internet.

It's not arbitrary. There is a clear, bright line between things individuals do that only endanger themselves - or which are wildly unlikely to endanger others - versus those which do endanger others. That's why drunk driving is a felony and not wearing a seatbelt is a minor violation. Even more importantly, it's why drunk driving or not being vaccinated is unethical, while not wearing a seatbelt is merely unlawful.

Seatbelts also affect your passengers (if you are wearing no seatbelt then your body can kill your passengers). So it's not just a personal decision.

it's up to my passengers then - their personal decision - take the risk without me wearing the seatbelt, not riding with me or convince me to put on one.

ah, the flying body scenario. Well it's really your passengers choice then, to get in the car.

Not wearing a seatbelt while driving does actually increase the risk to those around you. If you need to make a sudden swerve to avoid something that suddenly gets in your way such as a deer leaping into the road in front of you, wearing a seatbelt should increase your chances of maintaining control during and after the swerve.

It was really fun in the old days when we didn't have seatbelts and cars often had bench seating in front, so that on a sudden left turn (in the US) the driver could slide could slide far to the right.

I'm pro-vax, but I can see the argument of the anti folks: why actively take action to have something put in your body that (they've read) might harm you? I guess in their minds, if they get Covid at least it would happen passively.