> What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk?
@oauea:
> What violence?
torstenvl was specifically referring to state vaccine "mandates". Any state mandate must be enforced through violence or it has no effect.
Lest you believe that state mandates do not require violence, consider what happens if people refuse the vaccine. You can order them to get daily tests, but what if they refuse that? Eventually physical force (violence) will be required.
I don't see how that is really true. The state can, for example, refuse to provide you services if you're not vaccinated. If you're not allowed to enter a government building while unvaccinated without a justification, so as not to endanger the civil servants in that building, I'd hardly call that "violence".