[hellojesus]

Have you considered that the number of vaccine hesitant people has increased specifically as a result of the ever-increasing suppression of dissent? To me it seems like that's exactly what's happening.

The US should have handled this exactly like a sane country: - No lockdowns. You determine your individual risk level. Businesses are free to require masks if they want to. (I really would only be okay with a compelled wfh order, if possible.) The gov owes a lot of people a lot of money for compelling them not to work. The gov wouldn't owe money if consumers just stopped shopping places because they didn't feel comfortable not wearing a mask in a business that didn't require them. - Vaccines rollout is: take it if you want. We recommend it. It appears to be safe. Here is the data. If you don't want it, fine, but we are business as usual so you're accepting a higher risk.

[arcatech]

What you're proposing is really not an effective way to handle an outbreak of an airborne respiratory virus.

[gfodor]

Well, apparently, neither is what we have done. But at least in the scenario mentioned above, we don't find ourselves slipping into totalitarianism.

Perhaps there is no way, in a liberal society, to have a silver bullet? It turns out principles matter in such situations.

[tastyfreeze]

What they are proposing is how our nation is supposed to work. Everybody is responsible for assessing the risks for their self. If everybody does this then it is an effective way to handle an outbreak.