Arguably; drafts do look like that. I mean, I can't say how many people scream while being dragged off to fight in a war, but the concept is very similar.
There hasn't been a draft in most of our lifetimes. There also hasn't been a virus as deadly as this one.
So, maybe the better frame of reference would be: nationally mandatory vaccinations can be alright and make sense, under the same argument that allows the draft to be alright and make sense; we just need some quantitative framework under which it can be instituted.
For example: if covid becomes endemic (which seems to be likely), and we institute mandatory vaccinations for it during this phase of the pandemic, pre-endemic; the argument for mandatory vaccinations may make sense today, given the level of infections and deaths that are occurring, but will "mandatory boosters" make sense in three years when the level of deaths is (hopefully) far lower and more in-line with the seasonal flu?
The critical difference between a draft and mandatory vaccinations is: most people understand the general need for, but also hate the implementation of, the draft. Its a duty; its not desirable. In a democracy, this, alongside the massive cost and logistics effort of maintaining such a large army, acts as a very natural counter-balance to the impetus for people in power to abuse it.
Vaccines do not have such a counterbalance. They're very cheap per-shot, relative to the draft. The logistics are already in place and have successfully operated at scale. And, most concerning; many people want mandatory vaccination. No one should want it. Its an ugly necessity, but far too many people don't see the ugliness.
If you're reading this and need help to see the ugliness: Our government experiences corruption, like any government. Moderna's stock value has gone up by ~2,000% since the beginning of the pandemic. This, alone, is an obscenely powerful bias for people in key positions of power to push for more vaccination, irrespective of their need or efficacy; for example, maybe you assemble a panel of experts, who tell you vaccine boosters aren't necessary, then overrule the panel and say they're necessary anyway [1].
> And, most concerning; many people want mandatory vaccination. No one should want it.
The alternative is overflowing hospitals, masks forever and the restrictions on movement. I 100% want those who force this on society to stopped. The last 18 months have already been tremendously ugly. A vaccine mandate is far less so.
It is, if nothing else, hopefully proof to anyone with eyes that the Left is just as susceptible as the Right to turning something which should mostly be a medical decision, into a political one. Let alone the possibility that it could be corruption (which I feel is unlikely, but not impossible).
Much ire was thrown at Trump during his Presidency for filling many government positions with Yes-men who would blindly fall in line with the party.
Now, we have Biden's White House ranting non-stop about Boosters, a significant amount of concern that the Federal government, as a whole, has no unified message on whether boosters are even necessary and who they're necessary for, a CDC panel saying they're not necessary, and the head of the CDC falling in line with the Biden White House against medical advice. Its awfully similar to what Trump was lambasted for.
Ultimately the position I fall back on is: These decisions are medical decisions. Politics (and, it follows, corruption) need to be removed. When you take issues to the national level, politics and corruption will ABSOLUTELY, undoubtedly, in 100% of instances, be involved, no matter how well-intentioned the cause is. Thus, these issues need to stay out of the federal government, and be handled among the smallest number of people possible. Vaccination, for me and my children, may be something my doctor recommends; it may be something my school system requires; maybe even my workplace and the state has a say. But the discussion inevitably reaches a lower and lower quality as more voices and mandates and requirements are added.
The counter-argument to this is: Vaccination is only strongly effective if we reach some level of herd immunity, so we need federal mandates. Unfortunately, that's irrelevant; we live in a democracy, and if you push against the other side too hard, they push back, your mandate gets repealed, and your yes-men lose their re-election.
There hasn't been a draft in most of our lifetimes. There also hasn't been a virus as deadly as this one.
So, maybe the better frame of reference would be: nationally mandatory vaccinations can be alright and make sense, under the same argument that allows the draft to be alright and make sense; we just need some quantitative framework under which it can be instituted.
For example: if covid becomes endemic (which seems to be likely), and we institute mandatory vaccinations for it during this phase of the pandemic, pre-endemic; the argument for mandatory vaccinations may make sense today, given the level of infections and deaths that are occurring, but will "mandatory boosters" make sense in three years when the level of deaths is (hopefully) far lower and more in-line with the seasonal flu?
The critical difference between a draft and mandatory vaccinations is: most people understand the general need for, but also hate the implementation of, the draft. Its a duty; its not desirable. In a democracy, this, alongside the massive cost and logistics effort of maintaining such a large army, acts as a very natural counter-balance to the impetus for people in power to abuse it.
Vaccines do not have such a counterbalance. They're very cheap per-shot, relative to the draft. The logistics are already in place and have successfully operated at scale. And, most concerning; many people want mandatory vaccination. No one should want it. Its an ugly necessity, but far too many people don't see the ugliness.
If you're reading this and need help to see the ugliness: Our government experiences corruption, like any government. Moderna's stock value has gone up by ~2,000% since the beginning of the pandemic. This, alone, is an obscenely powerful bias for people in key positions of power to push for more vaccination, irrespective of their need or efficacy; for example, maybe you assemble a panel of experts, who tell you vaccine boosters aren't necessary, then overrule the panel and say they're necessary anyway [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/world/covid-boosters-vacc...