[Infinity315]

> Unprotected individuals aren't undoing the protection vaccines provide to the people who get vaccinated.

This was never the main argument pro-mandate people had. The argument for mandates was that herd immunity would be compromised if a sufficient number of people chose to not to vaccinate thus risking the population which would not be able to get vaccinated such as the immunocompromised.

> Personal choice and body autonomy should be something we all support.

I think this is true up to a point, where that point is is what should be argued. I think if a disease were sufficiently deadly and had a long incubation period such that it would allow itself to spread rapidly, we'd all argue that vaccine mandates should be enforced.

For example, consider the following hypothetical. Suppose a reliable vaccine existed for virus X with similar side-effects to current COVID vaccines. Virus X has 95% mortality for children and is as infectious as COVID, i.e. very infectious. In this scenario, would you still be opposed to vaccine mandates? Even if it had a 100% mortality rate for children and/or were even more infectious?

[zer8k]

> I think this is true up to a point, where that point is what should be argued. I think if a disease were sufficiently deadly and had a long incubation period such that it would allow itself to spread rapidly, we'd all argue that vaccine mandates should be enforced.

I see your point. If we are talking theoreticals w.r.t. your following disease/vaccine combination I would like to add the following:

It only works when the vaccine has no side effects long or short term.

Suppose that the scenario happens and a vaccine is in place at light speed. We skip all the normal trials (through cutting them short, whatever) and begin issuing it. We find it to be very effective at what it does and we force everyone to get under penalty of law, placement in a camp, whatever. Pick your poison. What happens if the pharma companies make exactly one mistake?

Now, we can name the drug. Let's call it Thalidomide. Is it worth causing, for example, horrendous birth defects to preserve herd immunity? Now you have to choose between saving people now versus saving people in the future. We have no idea what effects mandatory vaccination will have in 10, 20, or 30 years. That is a very scary proposition given how widely issued it was. It's also strange the FDA said it would take 70 years to release all the data. I think it's naive to think that there won't be any effect. Perhaps not as extreme as thalidomide - but how do we know today?

If someone doesn't want to take a vaccine they should be allowed to not take it. They are not immune from consequences. Such as, barring from PRIVATE non-tax-funded establishments. But bodily autonomy should go unquestioned. No matter which way you cut it vaccine mandates are a strike against civil rights.

[Infinity315]

> It only works when the vaccine has no side effects long or short term. ... Now, we can name the drug. Let's call it Thalidomide. Is it worth causing, for example, horrendous birth defects to preserve herd immunity?

Which is why I specified side-effects which are similar to the COVID vaccine.

> What happens if the pharma companies make exactly one mistake? ... Let's call it Thalidomide.

Do you think existing modern medical regulations would permit such an incident? Can you name a more modern example?

> We skip all the normal trials (through cutting them short, whatever) and begin issuing it.

Suppose we impose the same requirements as vaccines on the past. I.e. trials go through normally.

> I think it's naive to think that there won't be any effect.

Can you name examples in which side effects were demonstrated in vaccines up to past a year? Vaccines are metabolized, the effects are only apparent as long as the vaccines contents are within the body.

> Such as, barring from PRIVATE non-tax-funded establishments. But bodily autonomy should go unquestioned. No matter which way you cut it vaccine mandates are a strike against civil rights.

Do you agree that bodily autonomy only extends up to the point at which harm could befall another individual?

To further examine your beliefs, suppose we create a simulation which can perfectly replicate the effects of a drug or vaccine on the human body. We can prove demonstratively that a drug will have no negative side-effects and that it will stop virus X. Are you still against vaccine mandates in this case?

[User23]

> Do you agree that bodily autonomy only extends up to the point at which harm could befall another individual?

Hmm what would be the consequences of accepting that principle?

[brigandish]

> In this scenario, would you still be opposed to vaccine mandates?

There are no circumstances in which I would give up my right to bodily autonomy. You could simply tell me those data and I would stay away from others all on my own, like an adult, as was observed of most people in the UK during a pandemic which was not nearly as deadly, with vaccines not nearly as efficacious, nor as safe, nor with an at risk population as important (sorry, granddad) as in your example. Mandates are unnecessary and unjust.

[Izkata]

> as was observed of most people in the UK during a pandemic which was not nearly as deadly

And in the US, there was a page (seemingly taken offline sometime in 2021, I haven't been able to find it since) that graphed cell phone mobility data over early 2020 and showed a sudden drop about a week before any lockdowns began. Those orders had no effect (there was no additional drop), people were already doing it on their own.