Someone driving drink but not having an accident is doing less harm than someone driving sober and having an accident.

Where is my freedom to drive drunk?

Yeah. And if you drive your car into someone and cause an accident that is worse than driving drunk and you should face worse penalties.

Both of those are bad. Negligent driving is also criminal; there is a legal expectation that you are in control of your vehicle. And that is what is being attacked by the law.

The vaccine mandates aren't based on how in control your immune system is over the coronavirus; I won't rehash the natural immunity arguments but as an example they apply here.

And none of this is going to save you from the coronavirus. The evidence is that it is here to stay and we're all going to get it eventually. The vaccines aren't good enough to wipe it out and there is already an impressive number of vaccine escapes being seen. It isn't like an accident where you could go your whole life without being in one.

The vaccine is supposed to lower hospitalization rates. Maybe even it only dampens the numbers. But still, you don't overrun your hospitals to the extent there are no beds for both covid and non-covid patients.

I commend you to support vaccines even when I know They aren't 100% effective in reducing severe disease, and the effectiveness is going down. They don't prevent you from becoming infected and they don't prevent you from infecting others. This is what masks and social distancing are for.

I understand your concern. But even if you are convinced a government is your enemy, the vaccine is not that enemy.

Keep in mind that some interest groups were already pushing agaisnt vaccines before coronavirus. There is gain to be had from social unrest.

Not driving drunk is also not saving everyone from injuries and accident on the road, it just reduces it.

And while vaccinated people can still carry the virus, they are much less likely to carry it than non vaccinated people. You can't deny that.

Where I live, many places now mandate to show both a vaccination certificate, and a negative test result.

Aren’t infected people required to quarantine for a period of time? “Preventing both relatively larger and smaller harms, because they are both too large to tolerate,” doesn’t seem contradictory to me. And “not being vaccinated” is a pretty concrete property.

> Aren’t infected people required to quarantine for a period of time?

No?

Only some subset of those who are infected are required to isolate / quarantine.

Those who don’t get tested are free to meander.

> Those who don’t get tested are free to meander.

And we should call them for what they are: mobile biohazards.

There are established protocols and procedures for dealing with such.

All humans are disease vectors.

I’m not convinced we, here in Australia anyway, have achieved a balance sufficient to satisfy my particular set of beliefs - as far as they go in this five minute period.

> Those who don’t get tested are free to meander.

Since worklplaces and public transport require at tests for the unvaccinated now, those walking around untested are mostly the vaccinated.