From Alec Karakatsanis's excellent Usual Cruelty on plea bargains:
> “the Constitution requires that every guilty plea waiving the constitutional right to trial by a jury of one’s peers be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.69 But no one who works in the criminal system thinks that contemporary plea bargaining produces voluntary agreements. The vast majority of plea bargains are accepted by people who are told that they will be imprisoned for longer if they do not give up their right to a jury trial. Many of these people are in jail and are told that pleading guilty is the only immediate way out of jail. In no other cultural context would the word “voluntary” describe this arrangement. Should my coworker ask a person out on a dinner date but tell the person that, if he does not accept, he will be placed in a cage, no one would view the person’s agreement to dine with my coworker as voluntary. That’s not how we understand “voluntary” actions.”
Plea bargains are a totally different world, I'm not trying to compare this decision with plea bargains. What I would like to illustrate, through the author's example, is the process by which modern governments reduce the individual's agency in a de-facto manner, while de-jure asserting that individual's rights are upheld. People have been stuck inside for so, so long, keeping them out of restaurants if they don't get vaccinated is surely just manipulating their decision making toward getting a vaccine they may be uncomfortable getting.
I suppose I don't really get what good this does. If a person decides to not get vaccinated and then decides to dine indoors, who are they harming, other than potentially themselves, by making that decision? I wish they would get the vaccine, but I also do respect their rights to judge the information available for themselves without severely restricting their ability to live their lives.