> We have never required anything like this to go to a restaurant. Or the gym. Or the beach. This is a huge new step.
Indeed, instead there used to be mandatory, involuntary quarantine enforcement, sometimes (typhus, polio) on a per-household basis with the enforcement notice posted prominently on the front door. That restricted not only restaurants and beach visits but all visits of any kind.
I'm not exactly sure which side of the argument you're on here, but ignoring the utility and/or practicality of quarantine on a mass scale, I wouldn't compare it to a policy requiring everyone to show their papers to go to McDonalds.
It's almost like people are arguing "we did {restrictive policy} once, so any form of restriction is of the same form!"
I mean...hell: we had slavery once. So maybe let's set aside the idea that prior infringements of individual liberty justify future infringements of individual liberty?
I’d argue you not getting vaccinated and adding to the potential of a mutation that makes the vaccine ineffective is a violation of MY individual liberties, and the Supreme Court agrees. Which is why just about every state in the US actually can force you to get vaccinated, they just haven’t.
Could you provide the source for the supreme court agreement? It seems to me that forcing someone to get a vaccine would just as much violate their individual liberties so I'm rather curious what issue the supreme court was specifically addressing
I personally know several people who have told me that they would stab or shoot anyone who tried to force them get a vaccine. The logistics of that may be a bit tricky, of course.
How would the logistics of forced vaccination go down, anyway? Do you think people wouldn't forge their vaccine papers, bribe doctors or otherwise get them to be sympathetic, or otherwise circumvent/ignore the system/rules in order to avoid the vaccine?
As stated elsewhere in this thread, it is not going to be possible to stop the virus at this point. We will all eventually be exposed and the best we can do is be as safe as we believe we need to be and can.
Notably, the quarantine enforcement you describe were much more stringent requirements, levied against specific people who were believed to be infected or at elevated risk of infection (such as arrivals from overseas), never as a standing order issued against the population of the state's residents. Moreover, the quarantine laws which authorize this sort of thing in New York City demand due-process protections, such that those who are quarantined must receive notice that they are entitled to judicial review of the quarantine order.
Indeed, instead there used to be mandatory, involuntary quarantine enforcement, sometimes (typhus, polio) on a per-household basis with the enforcement notice posted prominently on the front door. That restricted not only restaurants and beach visits but all visits of any kind.