> Sometimes rights clash, which is why you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater despite having the right to freedom of speech.

The decision about yelling fire in a crowded theater originates from Schenck v. United States, in which the Supreme Court decided it's OK for the US Government to suppress anti-draft protests; consider if you wish to build arguments on this foundation.

Ironically, the ruling that spawned the "fire in a theater" meme about limits on free speech was largely overturned: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

Thankfully so, since "shouting fire in a theater" was an incredibly lame euphemism for telling people to dodge the draft.

If it weren’t, Fox News would be unable to operate.

> Access to healthcare is considered a right in Germany.

> They're mandating vaccines so that they can continue to provide all their citizens with this human right.

This is exactly why those people are wrong. True rights never clash.

True rights never clash. People need to be forced to be vaccinated because nobody has a right to spread a deadly disease, so, even if they think they won’t, vaccines will help preventing people from killing others by not being vaccinated.

> nobody has a right to spread a deadly disease

Including the vaccinated, who can still spread it, so I guess we must lock them up since they are already vaccinated, and we can't stop them from spreading the virus otherwise.

Saying that people don't have a right to spread the virus is disingenuous. The reality is that people don't have a right to be free from sickness or death. You can only make personal decisions about risk you are willing to take. To force other people to do things to make you safe is not a right.

> Including the vaccinated, who can still spread it

True, but when vaxxeds spread to other people who are vaccinated, nobody dies. It’s the unvaccinated who endanger themselves (their problem) and others (society’s problem) with their unwillingness to help. We should isolate the unvaccinated for their own protection.

> Saying that people don't have a right to spread the virus is disingenuous.

Try to deliberately infect someone with a disease such as AIDS, HPV, or smallpox and let me know what the law says about that.

> You can only make personal decisions about risk you are willing to take.

You can’t, for instance, drink and drive. It’s not your personal decision the moment your decision endangers others.

> To force other people to do things to make you safe is not a right.

Someone who insists in DUI and kills people regularly will end up being forced to live in a prison.

What's even more ridiculous about this line of "reasoning" is it completely ignores the fact that animals can carry and spread COVID too.

Are they going to advocate that we capture and vaccinate all the animals that humans can or could come in contact with?

It's utterly preposterous - but anyone that doesn't agree with them are the irrational ones. Propaganda and emotions running amok.

Well… some animals are dangerous. You can get deadly diseases from them, or simply be directly killed by them for lunch or the lulz.

So, I strongly suggest people get vaccinated so, at least, they don’t infect the bear that eats them.

> The reality is that people don't have a right to be free from sickness or death.

May I recommend you read article 2(2) of the German constitution at your convenience.

Read it, and I think you missed the irony that the right of "physical integrity" could also be, and is more likely to be, the right to not have the government control your body, such as forcing people to take a vaccination. If you believe that the right to physical integrity in the German constitution is to make it your right to not get sick, how much more is it the right of others to not have you make medical decisions for them?

Your question has been answered by a German appellate court in 1959 in regard to a smallpox vaccination mandate, in BVerwG I C 170.56 paragraph 21.

https://openjur.de/u/2347742.html

Wikipedia says there are cases pending in German supreme court regarding a recent measles vaccination mandate; the court has so far refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the mandate and left the question open for decision in the main trial (see paragraph 18).

https://openjur.de/u/2201133.html

Please stop spreading lies & anti-scientific propaganda. Vaccines don't prevent the spread of COVID.

The parent specifically said "help prevent," not "prevent." You've deliberately misrepresented their words.

At this point you're borderline rage-baiting / trolling, which isn't super welcome here.

From a philosophical perspective, you're not wrong, but real life constrains us greatly.

Germany could theoretically disallow unvaccinated people access to their ICUs without trampling any rights. It would get messy.

Germans aren't fond of messy solutions. They are a very practical people, and they've decided to take a more practical approach (vaccine mandates) that might respect individual rights less, but also results in much less death for those very individuals and the rest of society.

You not wrong either, but I seem to remember that the Germans had a mighty neat, i.e., non-messy "solution" (some would say a "final" one) for a "problem" they thought they had.

Throughout history, making people second-class citizens has never resulted in anything good. If you can name one instance in history where making people second-class citizens was a net benefit, I will eat my words.

I'll suppress the obvious Godwin's law call-out to just state that "unvaccinated" is not a protected class, and we probably both agree that carrots tend to work better than sticks.

Oh, it's not a orotected class?! That's fine, then! If we take nonrepentant apostates off the list of protected classes, do we get to lock them up, too? :)

How exactly does forcing teenagers to be vaccinated help with the situation on the intensive care units?

Fewer disease vectors (the teens that avoid infection due to vaccination) and smaller disease vectors (the teens that get less sick) leads to less spread.

So this justifies treating teenagers the same way as 60 year olds who are not willing to get vaccinated and actually have a high risk on ending in the ICU? Even worse, a pensioner can live quite well with the new restrictions while the teenager's family is not even allowed to meet other families anymore. You can twist it all you want, this is absurdly inhumane (and in stark contrast to the federal vaccination commission's recommendation).