Aren't unvaccinated individuals the ones who made this decision? You may disagree with the conclusion of their dubious risk analyses, but if you choose not to get vaccinated then all bets are off.
Or is it that the risk that the unvaccinated pose to the vaccinated are so high that they warrant strong arm solutions?
This is the crux of it. They've made the decision, but when they fill up ICU beds and prevent sick or injured people from getting the quality of care that hospitals can provide, then their decision affects others (and this is not a hypothetical, it is happening daily).
If unvaccinated people agree to sit home and not go into a hospital when they can't breathe, that would demonstrate that they're living with the consequences of their decision.
What bothers me is the inconsistency. It's opportunistically seizing on the burden that choosing to not get vaccinated places on medical resources, in a way that the typical vaccine mandate supporter would never dream of doing with other high-risk behavior (e.g. men who engage in extensive high-risk intercourse with other men, making them 100X more likely to contract many STDs, including HIV). The political left's backing of the vaccine mandate is thoroughly unprincipled.
If our health safety net (hospitals) were not being affected, then yes, covid promiscuity would be treated identically to any of the above. There's principles here that you don't want to acknowledge.
But of course, it goes without saying that the vast majority of vaccine mandate supporters have never considered supporting laws restricting high risk sexual behavior. They would never have even entertained the thought, no matter what the facts. Their hypocrisy is staggering.
And no, laws against high-risk sexual activity have to do with discriminating against a behavior, not a protected classes. Gay men are perfectly capable of being monogamous, and avoiding high-risk sexual activity.
But yes, you are advocating that people have their rights infringed upon, when you advocate for a vaccine mandate. And worse, you're being blatantly inconsistent, based on shallow ideological considerations.
Apparently virtue signalling as a supporter of gay rights, or supporter of the obese, is more important for vaccine mandate supporters than minimizing the costs that irresponsible behavior burdens society with. Or maybe minimizing the costs of irresponsibility isn't the real motivation at all - the real motivation is persecuting anti-vaxxer MAGA types, under the pretense of holding people responsible for the costs they burden society with.
Your hypothetical HIV vaccine example is not relevant to the situation with Covid. As stated in the original post, the current mandate is to ensure workplace safety. It is not possible to contract HIV in an elevator or under normal workplace conditions.
I never posed a hypothetical HIV vaccine example, and your deliberate mischaracterization of my point is another demonstration of the bad faith and manipulative tactics you employ.
Sure it was. You said in reference to 'liberals' who support covid vaccine mandates (but presumably wouldn't support measures to restrict 100% of other risky behaviors): "Their hypocrisy is staggering."
My point, which you continue to ignore, is that the societal cost of other diseases or risky behaviors is irrelevant to the current discussion. The COVID-19 vaccine mandate discussed in the OP is a matter of workplace safety. Cancer, heart disease, HIV etc are not threats to workplace safety. If there are other circulating diseases that present an equivalent scale threat to workplace safety please feel free to present them. Addiction may be, however in the US employers already have wide latitude to test for it and terminate employees in violation.
Now socialization of medical expenses is being used to rationalize institutionalized discrimination against the unvaccinated, because it aligns with a particular political tribe's agenda. A tribe that also advocates the socialization of medical expenses.
Correct, these things are not contagious to others.
>>This puts tremendous strain on the hospital system, and if they’re uninsured it means the taxpayers are covering the cost of their treatment.
Given the vaccines can't provide herd immunity, the contagion argument for mandates is shaky too.
>>We have never used this justification to institute invasive laws to prohibit habits that lead to obesity, or to prohibit drug-use or alcohol consumption for that matter
The question is when we have a right to infringe upon another party's bodily autonomy. None of these vaccine mandate advocates would be calling for any type of infringement if it related to refraining from irresponsible behavior like over-eating, alcohol consumption, drug use, or high-risk sexual activity.
It’s a false equivalency. Addiction cannot, today, be cured with a shot.
But for the vaccine mandate supporters, who oppose laws to hold accountable people who burden the healthcare system through over-eating, drug and alcohol abuse or high-risk sexual activity, virtue signalling is more important than saving lives, or punishing MAGA types is more important than respecting rights. Hence the inconsistency.
So yes, the motivations are suspect.
This thread, and the OP are discussions of a vaccine mandate for workplace safety. OSHA has wide authority to regulate workplace safety and implement standards.
look at the total ICU numbers before COVID (obesity still existed then), versus over the past year, to see the difference in strain
also, your unsubstantiated claim that "the contagion argument for mandates is shaky too" seems to be itself shaky, as herd immunity is not required to make a nonzero positive impact
which is good, because a nonzero percent of the population has tried their hardest to screw up every single covid preventative countermeasure, just so they can say 'oh, guess we didn't/can't achieve herd immunity, so now we should do nothing like we said and did all along'
And the costs of treating obesity related illnesses, like many heart disease, cancer and diabetes cases, are enormous, and dwarf the costs relating to COVID.
Even in COVID's first year in the human population, when it spread like wildfire, heart disease and cancer killed far more people, and obesity is a contributing factor in a significant fraction of cases of these illnesses, particularly heart disease.
>>as herd immunity is not required to make a nonzero positive impact
Without herd immunity, the virus continues to circulate, until every one has contracted it. After they have contracted a COVID infection, they acquire far stronger immunity than provided by vaccination.
Overwhelming the hospitals puts everyone at greater risk.
So any cases means more mutations more quickly. This too is a shared risk.
There just is not any way around all this. The human condition is not an individual affair.
Yes. And personally, as callous as this is, I give zero shits about COVID deaths of people who choose to not vaccinate, though I feel terrible for their family members that got vaccinated and couldn't convince them to vaccinate because right-wing media has poisoned their minds.
> Or is it that the risk that the unvaccinated pose to the vaccinated are so high that they warrant strong arm solutions?
This question is highly subjective.
The vaccines are very effective at preventing spread, hospitalization, and death, but not 100%. Look at the statistics coming from any major hospital, and you'll see the trend that around 95% of the people hospitalized with COVID are unvaccinated.
The more people are vaccinated, the slower the spread, and the lower total number of breakthrough infections and breakthrough disease (Note: There's a difference between the two!).
Back to your question of if the risk is so high to warrant strong-arm solutions...Currently, I'd say no. But how long until Delta evolves into an even worse form that the current vaccines do nothing for?