[alea_iacta_est]

Are you sure you are on the right side of the argument yourself?

Suppose next year, the government mandate that you lose weight, or stop smoking or run everyday, all that of course for the "greater good". And then the year after that, it requires that you give pills to your children because that makes them "less indisciplined" and so on and so forth.

Stop being so certain and think a little bit. By accepting this mandate we're not only accepting this jab, we're accepting all the future crazy ideas that the government will come with.

[criley2]

This is a classic slippery slope argument. Losing weight is not the same thing as a pandemic like this. The two-fold reason that these measures are taken is A) over-filling of hospitals and shut-down of all non-emergency services and B) extremely high death rate. Smoking or whatever scary slippery slope you think we're on is not the same thing as the ICU's filling up way over capacity and hundreds of thousands of people dropping dead that normally wouldn't.

The idea that we should be against common-sense measures to promote herd immunity during a very real pandemic because "the government will make you stop smoking" is frankly an outrageously claim.

It's long been held, since at least America began, that herd immunity is vital to the success and security of a nation. Our militaries require these vaccinations because a fighting force must be healthy. Our schools require these vaccines because sick kids and sick cities don't learn.

The idea that a vaccine mandate is anything more than a century-old, bog-standard, completely required part of the human war against disease is a radical and anti-civilized position. Herd immunity is non-negotiable for our level of modern society to exist.

I swear, we are killing ourselves. Dense civilization requires trade offs, and in the war against pandemic disease, that does include vaccination.

[naasking]

> ICU's filling up way over capacity and hundreds of thousands of people dropping dead that normally wouldn't

This claim is mostly overblown at this point. It was a legitimate concern early on, but it hasn't been true for some time.

The vaccine claims are also misleading. Herd immunity by vaccination is not the only way to protect society, and the distinct lack of discussion or recognition of immunity from infection is conspicuous. COVID's infection fatality rate for certain cohorts is low enough that vaccination isn't strictly needed, and arguably taking a different tack on this could potentially have saved far more lives.

For instance, consider if we had only isolated and vaccinated those at greatest risk of death and complications from COVID (40 and older, immunocompromised, comorbidities), and then shipped the remaining vaccine supply to the third world to suppress the emergence of variants. We might not have had Delta or Omicron at all. It's not at all clear that this would not have saved more people in the long run.

Beating this vaccine mandate drum is blinding people to other rational solutions. It's not going to end well. This convoy is probably only the beginning.

[stirfish]

This thread doesn't deserve your patience, and yet we are still blessed by this comment. We could all (myself included) try to be more like you.

[alea_iacta_est]

Ok so what about lockdowns then?

[seized]

No, that's absurd. You need to think a bit first. Those things are more easily taxed to "solve". And you being fat doesn't impact me in the least, unless I am unfortunately stuck next to you on a plane. I can't catch it from you. So that isn't comparable to COVID.

Notice how smoking has long been regulated and limited, but not banned? That slippery slope argument doesn't work either.

And the bit about giving kids pills is paranoid nonsense. And ironically, kids have had required vaccines for a very long time. With no sliding down any slopes.

[krapp]

>By accepting this mandate we're not only accepting this jab, we're accepting all the future crazy ideas that the government will come with.

No we're not. Accepting mandates doesn't somehow force everyone to automatically accept anything any politician claims or does in the future. That's not how anything works.

[alea_iacta_est]

> That's not how anything works.

That's how everything works, it's called a precedent.

[gruez]

There's literally people in this thread that are justifying vaccine mandates because we had them before.

[stirfish]

That's a pretty cool slippery slope you just constructed. You've almost convinced me, but you forgot to tell me that they'll take my guns and make me gay.

[pessimizer]

I can't catch fat. Suppose next year, people who are asymptomatic typhoid carriers aren't allowed to work in food service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

[NationalPark]

This strikes me as a false equivalency made in bad faith.