> the common centrist opinion that 'the vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine, public vaccine mandates may be premature."
I think you've misstated the centrist opinion here. If it were really obvious that "the vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine", then public vaccine mandates would be the obvious choice. The reason public vaccine mandates are premature is that it is not obvious that everyone should get the vaccine. People's risk profiles vary widely, for both vaccines and for COVID. That's why it should be left to individual people and individual workplaces to strike the best balance for them, instead of a one-size-fits-all mandate for everybody.
Mandating all Americans get a extremely new vaccine or else they are unable to be employed is pure madness with few exceptions, such as a plague that stands to kill off a large % of the species.
Not all mandates are equal, not all vaccines are equal, and not all diseases are equal. A mandate barring employment, for a vaccine involving a novel mechanism and drug, for COVID is bonkers.
Yes, exactly: these are reasons to not be convinced that "everyone should get the vaccine". It is extremely hard to imagine a realistic situation in which we would be that convinced--convinced enough to justify the mandates that are actually being done--but that's exactly my point. The "really obvious" standard (which is extremely difficult to meet) is the one we should be applying, but we're not.
If this is true (and I'm not saying it's not), then that means public vaccine mandates should never be made at all, because if they're obviously justified, they're not necessary, and if they're not obviously justified, they're not justified at all (since, as I've argued upthread, the "really obvious" standard is the only justifiable one for mandates in the first place).
This inability to discern the nuance of the situation really scares me. It showcases an unfortunate lack of critical thinking concerning the impact of large scale public policy, like this vaccine mandate.
"The vaccine is good, and everyone should get a vaccine" is, ultimately, a personal health decision.
"The vaccine is good, and everyone must get a vaccine if you want to work" brings in a fantastically large number of externalities to the discussion, including, but not limited to:
* The exploitation of America's lack of social safety net to more tastefully hide the assertion that this is a blanket vaccine mandate. America is capitalistic; most people work. A bill which straight-up said "every citizen must get a vaccine" would be shot-down by every judge in the country, rightfully; is this bill really, meaningfully different, when there are few public safety nets in place to catch people who refuse?
* The overuse of executive power to dictate private company behavior. This is basically what OSHA does; no one is arguing there is not precedence. The argument is whether this goes too far beyond their jurisdiction.
* The overuse of executive power to force companies to become vaccine police; this is something many companies, even ones that BROADLY support the vaccine, fundamentally do not want to do. Its a massive internal logistical effort. They've never done anything like it before.
* Personal liberty; like it or not, America is founded on a strong basis of personal liberties, arguably the strongest in the world. A common counter-argument is "what about my freedom to feel safe among my coworkers"; first, semantically, what's being described here is not a Freedom. You cannot have the "Freedom" to feel safe. Maybe it could be classified as a Right, but the Rights afforded to US Citizens are few between and very well defined; this is absolutely, in any sense of the word, not one of them.
* Logistics; everyone forgets about the second part of the mandate; either be vaccinated or face continuous testing. Going back to the corporate vaccine police argument; companies are not set up to do in-house testing, by and large. Its OBSCENELY expensive and time-consuming; one local, large company, here in a low-vaccination state, says they've already spent eight figures this year on testing, thanks to an internal mandate that looks identical to this upcoming public one. Off the record; they wish they could discontinue it, they fundamentally cannot afford it. Many companies will outsource it to the Walgreens and CVS's and other private healthcare entities, which are already strained enough. Can our healthcare system handle the increased load of tens of millions of tests every day? Did anyone in power even consider this?
* Executive christening of private corporation profit; we have, effectively, two highly functional vaccines. Passing this bill means, in no uncertain terms, that these two companies will make billions of dollars. We already have a military-industrial complex; why not add a public health-industrial complex to the mix as well; so much for equitable, public good.
* Impact to other countries; Vaccines are a critical, limited resource. We have the best ones, and the best manufacturing capacity. Other countries, including many low-income underserved ones like in Africa and East Asia, need and want these doses that we're forcing onto people who don't want them.
* Impact to future elections; We live in a democracy. This is a massive gambit by the left, which may end up inciting the right-leaning centrists to actually get out and vote Biden out. Political power is a limited resource; is this the best thing for the left to spend theirs on?
* Impact to the economy; we're in a worker shortage right now. Forcing a massive portion of the population to make a decision between their personal health and work, will inevitably lead to many choosing personal health. They'll "make it work"; maybe by moving to smaller companies that aren't subject to the mandate, leaning on spousal support, what little public safety net our country has, or something else worse.
> "The vaccine is good, and everyone should get a vaccine" is, ultimately, a personal health decision.
No, "The vaccine is good, I should get the vaccine" is a personal health decision. "The vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine" is a much, much broader claim, which only makes sense as an attempt to justify a mandate, which has all of the downsides you list. That's why I objected to it: because framing such a broad claim as a "personal health decision" or a "centrist position" is exactly the kind of lack of critical thinking that you rightly criticize.
I think you've misstated the centrist opinion here. If it were really obvious that "the vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine", then public vaccine mandates would be the obvious choice. The reason public vaccine mandates are premature is that it is not obvious that everyone should get the vaccine. People's risk profiles vary widely, for both vaccines and for COVID. That's why it should be left to individual people and individual workplaces to strike the best balance for them, instead of a one-size-fits-all mandate for everybody.