The Steel Man Case Against Vaccine Mandates
Too often do I see vaccine mandate arguments crudely distorting the responses made against mandatory inoculations. Whether that be because of a superiority complex or a difficulty to address hard viewpoints, I will try today to present the steelman against vaccine mandates and hope to elicit feedback from others.
From my research, the arguments in favor of mandatory Covid-19 vaccination fall into three main buckets:
You are free to refuse treatment but not free to infect others.
Covid cases put an undue strain on our healthcare system and economy
The vaccines themselves are not dangerous and therefore should be taken
You are free to refuse treatment but not free to infect others.
The argument that “you are free to refuse treatment but not free to infect others,” falls squarely into the classic libertarian dilemma. You are only as free insofar as your actions do not adversely affect others. The keyword here being adversely. While more data needs to be collected, initial estimations put Covid-19 mortality rate with vaccination at about 1/3rd of the common flu. The question then becomes where does the Covid-19 with vaccination mortality rate have to be to compel others to do as you wish. In my opinion, below flu mortality rate is safely in the ballpark of not a public health issue among the vaccinated. If it were, then the flu would cripple society as much as Covid did.
Covid cases put an undue strain on our healthcare system and economy
I think the answer to this complaint is twofold. Compelling others to do as you wish to limit healthcare costs is problematic because that argument could be made for any lifestyle activity that may put you in the hospital. Compulsory food regimen training to limit weight gain due to the potential associated healthcare cost is one simple example. At some point personal liberties to act in such a way you feel to be most fulfilling, whether that being eating as much food as you like or refusing a vaccination, is simply a freedom I believe worth protecting. Secondly, the actual healthcare costs associated with Covid-19 pale in comparison to other common avoidable ailments so the premise supporting the conclusion is somewhat flawed.
The vaccines themselves are not dangerous and therefore should be taken
I think this argument is simply shortsighted. By definition, we do not know the long-term effects of the vaccine as it has only been in existence for about 2 years. Moreover, the risk-calculus for some individuals may not be worth it. A healthy 21-year-old has a minuscule chance of dying from Covid and may make the personal decision to deal with potential long-covid (which can occur even with the vaccine) against the effects of the vaccine itself. The risk equation is different for all simply because there are so many unknowns. A healthy individual today has to make the uneducated choice of estimating the long-term effects of the vaccine versus the virus. That decision should be personal in light of its near-zero effects on the vaccinated.
There are axioms upon which this country was founded: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These axioms have done us well as we are the longest-standing democracy in existence without a fundamental government change. It is imperative that we preserve our freedoms simply because it may be the one thing actually holding us together.
4. Continued proliferation of COVID infections increases the likelihood of a variant.
Your argument against "Covid cases put an undue strain on our healthcare system and economy" is flawed. There are people dying in Canada because their "elective" surgeries have had to be postponed because wards are crammed with the unvaccinated. At least one person has died in the ER waiting for trreatment, again because of the hospital was overloaded with unvaccinated COVID-19 cases. You grossly underestimate the harm the unvaccinated are causing the vaccinated, especially when that harm is real and present, and the possible harm from the vaccine minimal and mostly speculative.