Anti-mandate arguments are just anti-vaxx arguments
By James Surowiecki observes that, even given only 280 characters at a time to work with, people making ostensibly anti-mandate arguments almost invariably just make anti-vaxx arguments:
The narrative is that they're not anti-vaccine. They're anti-mandate. But there are lots of mandates they, as truckers, have to follow to do their jobs. And all the explanations for why this mandate is different all come back, ultimately, to people not wanting to get vaccinated.— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) February 20, 2022
The real question, I think, is how much respect does a protest movement against a mandate deserve if the goal of the mandate – in this case, getting as many people as possible vaccinated – is totally reasonable.— James Surowiecki (@JamesSurowiecki) February 20, 2022
Anti-mandate are all just anti-vaxx arguments because otherwise anti-mandate arguments are just nonsensical — even leaving aside the fact that vaccine mandates specifically were a widespread and banal policy prior to Joe Biden’s inauguration, there is obviously no generalized right to “personal autonomy” free of any restraint. Nobody is engaging in sleep deprivation torture on behalf of the right of restaurant workers not to wash their hands after using the restroom.
Surowiecki is also right to remind us of how widespread the contemporaneous opposition to mandatory seat belt laws was. It’s seen as a trivial regulation now because the cost-benefit ratio is so obviously low, but it wasn’t seen that way at the time. And the case for mandatory vaccines is stronger, because large numbers of people being unvaccinated during a pandemic poses risks to other people that refusing to wear seat belts does not.
The relevant question about the COVID-19 vaccines is whether they’re safe (they are) and whether they’re effective (they definitely are.) So mandates are eminently justified and the majority of Canadians are right to hold the Ivermectin Insurrectionists in contempt.
