At a considerable cost. There's a large number of people for whom the vaccine won't work when it has been taken correctly or who cannot take the vaccine because it will react very badly with their chemotherapy or whatever.
This "let Darwin deal with the anti-vaxers" solution, though initially attractive, ends up being sociopathic when you dig into it.
I'm not saying it is attractive. Just that that will be the consequence, it is not sociopathic on my end, it is on theirs. By not taking the vaccine they are also risking the lives of others who do take it and for whom it isn't effective or who can't take it.
What percentage of the population needs to be vulnerable for the entire population to be forcibly inconvenienced for their needs? When is it the responsibility of the vulnerable to protect themselves vs forcing society at large to protect the vulnerable? Certainly there is some threshold, considering that we didn't shut down society in the past for the tiny percentage of bubbleboys with no immune system. To call people sociopathic is to close your mind and not see the real gray areas. So to ask again, what percentage of society needs to be vulnerable in order for it to be ethical to coerce everyone to do something?
> Certainly there is some threshold, considering that we didn't shut down society in the past for the tiny percentage of bubbleboys with no immune system.
Well, thankfully we haven't done this today either. This virus appears to affect more than just those that die from it, and that group of victims already includes more than a "tiny percentage of bubbleboys."
The virus kills on the order of 1% of people who contract it, and can cause serious illness or death even for healthy people, so anyone who is able to get the vaccine should get the vaccine. It's not like you're being asked to give up an organ or something; you're being asked to protect yourself, and protect those unfortunate enough not to be able to get the vaccine themselves as well. Rather than quibbling over percentages, why not ask yourself what ethical foundation a healthy person could have to not get the vaccine once it's been proven safe and effective.
The alternative is to make vaccination a precondition for a lot of government services, particularly public education. Also there needs to be a heavy advertising campaign advocating for vaccination.
No, but neither is that an issue of bodily autonomy.
Bodily autonomy is about being in control of what happens to your body — it does not mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want with your body.
So, logically the solution is not to mandate the vaccine, but to restrict what unvaccinated people can do, where necessary to protect others. For example, if not vaccinated, you should continue to wear a mask while indoors in public (as long as local virus cases are above a given threshold), as well as avoiding large gatherings.
