[3825]

I fully support it. The only thing that gives me pause is the cost. As long as the vaccine is easily available free of cost, I am OK with a mandate.

[version_five]

Obviously I dont, and I think it would be boring to get into the pros and cons, but what I'd suggest thinking about if we go down this road is a constitutional amendment, one way or the other, to either say "here is an enumeration of the powers government has to impose vaccines/treatments on people", or "people have a specific right not to be subjected to mandates" in order to get a greater clarity and settle the discussion from a government powers perspective. We can argue all we like about what's constitutional now, but it would be much better to actually clarify it, for better or worse. I don't see much chance of this happening in the current environment, but I think it would elevate the debate

[ryantgtg]

Are we using the word “mandate” correctly? So far all I’m seeing are requirements in order to utilize certain public/private resources (like visiting a place). But if you’re not using those resources, then the vaccine isn’t required. I’d think a “mandate” would entail requiring the vaccine for everyone.

[edmcnulty101]

I'm a big fan of permanent vaccine mandate and permanent mask mandate and permanent social distancing mandate and maybe even additional permanent protective gear mandate like gloves or hair nets.

For all people in California.

[vanattab]

Nothing is ever free of cost...