[bediger4000]

I am not required to "have a drivers licence" to participate in society or the economy, therefore society can put restrictions on having one, like registering for selective service, paying alimony, etc etc.

That's one of those very technically true things, that pragmatically isn't true.

[taxyz]

Again, this is a bad analogy. Having a driver's license isn't linked to adverse health effects.

I am not sure why people always go down these weird avenues to try to justify their convictions. If what you believe you think is right (presumably why you believe it) then you should be able to argue your position on the merits rather than trying to sneak in why your position is correct by relating it to something more anodyne as justification.

The original argument was that the vaccine was like walking around a city and we don't educate people on the adverse side effects or risks of walking around a city. This is bad because people can choose to live in cities or not - whether or not you'll have the same employment prospects or whatever, you do not have to participate in city life. Now you're trying to make the argument that we put restrictions on society based on holding some sort of identification. I'm willing to bet society would look at those restrictions differently if the mere act of getting an driver's license carried the risk of cardiovascular complications (as alleged by this report).

Restrictions on society based on having identification =/= restrictions on society based on your covid vaccination status.

Vaccination risk awareness =/= pedestrian safety awareness.

Presumably, you believe the benefits of the vaccine greatly outweigh any risks, so why are you opposed to people being explained the risk before they get the vaccine? If you believe that the benefits outweigh the risks, why are you incapable of arguing that position? Why make a contrived argument that its like getting a drivers license or walking around a city when its patently not?