It is not her alleged position; she detailed her policy (excepting the stop condition) earlier.I take it you're obsessively fixating on Toni's (alleged) position because you've realized how stupid and melodramatic your argument sounds when applied to any real mandate policies that have been enacted?But that isn't the point. I was attacked for describing Toni's policy correctly.The only reason it's indefinite is vax resistance.Of course you did not write the words house arrest. But that is what your proposed policy is: detention and confinement at home for the unvaccinated, for an indefinite period of time.
We cznnot begin to estimate when we can get on top of this pandemic, not while people insist on maximizing the virus' chances to spread and mutate, and remain a threat to all.
Thus, taking away their choice to be virus enablers is necessary for the good of the rest of us.
The states already have the right to force vaccinations, since over a century ago, and if discomfort, inconvenience, social pressure, and death don't increase vaccinations, the continued evolution of C19 versions will eventually require this.
We'll certainly see what the American public is willing to support. At the moment, Toni's indefinite house arrest policy is obviously not supported by the broad American public.
Whilst I find her policy beyond the pale and beyond what a majority would currently support, at least in America, it was only December last year that Biden said he did not see himself supporting a vaccine mandate.
And, no. I do not believe that indefinite house arrest policies are outside the Overton window. Indeed, Toni's idea seems quite popular on this board.