[arcticfox]

IMO the position that someone should be free from all consequences is the meaningless idea.

Someone not taking the vaccine is imposing consequences on everyone else around them and society at large, raising the risk of immune-escape variants, raising transmission risk to people that can't take it for medical reasons, raising the risk even for vaccine-protected people by defeating herd immunity (J&J gives 72% protection, so you're running a fair risk if the rest of society isn't vaccinated.)

The consequences you complain of are pretty much just pricing in those externalities to the decision.

[kosievdmerwe]

How is your comment relevant to mine?

The thrust of my argument is that imposing negative consequences (irrespective of reason) is a form of coercion. There are many things that ought to be coerced, but it is ridiculous to assert in the face of imposed consequences that people aren't being coerced or forced into taking vaccines.

People might not want to state it that strongly and the coercion isn't as strong as what criminals or the government can impose, but it's still someone or someones using their power to enforce behavior on others.

And couching that in phrases like "pricing in those externalities" doesn't change this. In fact it makes it more blatant.

[arcticfox]

By your expansive definition of coercion, everyone else would be getting "coerced" into contact with many more unvaxxed potential carriers by things like going to get groceries, getting on flights, getting tickets etc...exactly the same limitations you're claiming are coercing people into getting vaccines.

So under your expansive definition - which IMO is not the right or correct one - sure, people are getting coerced into getting vaccines. And if they aren't coerced, it's coercion against the rest of the population.

That's why your definition isn't useful and isn't used, and "coercion" is generally used for a specific set of acts.