Going out in public is a COVID-danger only if you have COVID, just as driving is a drunk-driving danger only if you are drunk.
People who are not drunk do not pose a drunk-driving risk.
Your analogy would work if people knew they were infected or going to infect someone. But they don't. Which is why it doesn't work. The damage has already happened when the person has contracted covid, which is why that is the car crash. To me your analogy is telling people, that car crashes are only bad when people are in car crashes. The bad part has already happened. If you want to prevent car crashes you discourage the unnecessarily risky behavior that tends to lead to car crashes.
Yep, there's risk and there is unnecessary risk. Most modern societies have decided to prohibit unnecessary risk by outlawing it.
People who are not drunk do not pose a drunk-driving risk.
Except that people who are unvaccinated DO pose a greater risk of contracting and spreading the virus. THIS is why your analogy doesn't work. THIS is what I have told you from the beginning. You refuse to acknowledge that choosing to go unvaccinated in public is unnecessarily risky behavior.
People get sick all the time and they assume that they just have a cold until their symptoms become more distinctive so they go to work and attend town council meetings and sneeze on the produce in the grocery store because they "just have a cold" and they need to do their business. But they are wrong and they have already caused damage in society.
Do all the elements line up too perfectly for you?
No, the opposite. Equating being unvaxxed with permanent drunkenness is the element that lines up rather badly.
Except that it is. People who choose to be drunk permanently should have their driver's licenses taken away. If they continue to drive despite their choice to be drunk permanently, they should be punished by the authorities to discourage that behavior in others. What's the problem here?
Being unvaccinated in public is a state of being drunk and driving. You can be as unvaccinated as you want if you stay private.
No: having COVID in public is a state of being drunk and driving.
But it doesn't work that way in the real world. People are infecting others unintentionally and unknowingly. That is how the disease spreads. The solution to your analogy is to punish people who are deliberately spreading the virus knowingly. But that isn't a solution that actually solves anything. The damage is already done. I mean sure, we should hunnish that behavior too, and that is what we do, because people who drive drunk get one Driving intoxicated charge and people who drive drunk and crash get the charge for Driving intoxicated and multiple other charges for the damage they do. That's why crashing is equivalent to getting Covid. And the Driving Intoxicated is the risky behavior of public unvacinatedness.
Sending people to jail is unbearable for them and permissible for society. This is how society has worked for millenia. You sound like you are hearing this for the first time. YES. We discourage bad behavior by making the choice to engage in it result in unbearable circumstances for the person who choses poorly. Kidnapping is essentially what jail is. Capital punishment is a thing too. Some societies kill the people who don't make the "favored choice" as you call it. How do you not understand this?
But that's what I'm asking you. Why don't you simply kill the people who refuse to vaccinate?
Then, their risk of drunk driving is zero. You don't like unnecessary risk.
This is a weird red herring. There is a thing called nuance and measured response. I don't want drunk drivers to be executed, that is too extreme. I don't even advocate for any punishment at all for people who get drunk responsibly. The consequences for drinking is you aren't allowed behind the wheel. The consequences for being unvaccinated are that you aren't allowed in public. The consequences for drinking and driving are that you face the potential for jail time. The consequences for being unvaccinated in public should be that you face... some serious repercussions enforced by societies authorities.
It isn't entirely clear at this point that COVID recovery is better or worse than the vaccine, but it is also mostly un-documentable and therefore prone to adding corruption to this hypothetical mandate system.
We know how to detect if somebody has COVID-19. If they've had a positive result and there is evidence for it, why can you not point to your results and say 'I've had COVID'? Indeed, the documentation (of a positive result) should be acceptable to the authority that created it, should it not?
The test doesn't tell us if you are still contagious.
If it is true that "natural immunity" only protects you from the strain you contracted the first time, but it is known that the vaccine protects against a broader variety of variants then this documentation also becomes a meaningless indication of safety.
The vaccine is easily available in many places and comes with documentation that can be verified by an authority. Also offering Covid recovery as an alternative to vaccines makes getting covid into an beneficial outcome for some people. That's bad. We don't want people trying to get the disease just so that they can get their covid passport.
I do wonder how they can go out and get COVID if they are in perpetual house arrest? After all, the perpetual house arrest is supposed to prevent them getting it, isn't it?
Have you ever met someone who drives faster than the speed limit? I have.
Regardless, it is counterproductive to the purpose and intent of the vaccine mandate if there is an option that rewards the reckless behavior that the mandate aims to eliminate.
