As a fully vaccinated person who thinks that people who disagree with me should have rights, and who values freedom more than wealth, I'm proud that my name is on that list.
As a fully vaccinated person who understands that the point of every law in a democratic society is for the benefit of everybody (including myself) at the expense of my own liberty, I am proud that my name is not on that list.
When you increase community immunity, you can reduce a pandemic to an endemic (a disease that causes only a few hospitalizations each year and doesn't threaten rationing care). This means businesses can open up, people can remove masks, and everything can go back to normal. People's livelihoods will no longer be at stake. My freedom to choose whether to vaccinate might be restricted, but I benefit overall.
When you implement laws against burning fields and barbecuing on days with poor air circulation, you let everybody breathe easier without masks and without suffering breathing problems. My freedom to barbecue might be restricted, but I benefit overall.
> the point of every law in a democratic society is for the benefit of everybody
provably false.
So are you saying that my parents and grandparents, who went on strike and participated in worker unions, were wrong, and that they should have accepted labour laws as they were back then, since those laws were conceived in a democratic society hence they were fair by definition?
> When you increase community immunity
we already have that, in many advanced economies, including Australia where I live, we are now at 80-90% vaccination rates, which is what the WHO identified as a goal; we will never reach 100% even if we were living in a techno-dictatorship, because some people can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. As a vaccinated person, you have to be aware that when you go to a public place not everyone around you is vaccinated, this can't be changed regardless of what happens to the truckers.
> barbecuing on days with poor air circulation,
preventing someone from having a barbie on a certain day vs. firing someone from their job - not exactly two comparable situations
> So are you saying that my parents and grandparents, who went on strike and participated in worker unions, were wrong, and that they should have accepted labour laws as they were back then, since those laws were conceived in a democratic society hence they were fair by definition?
No, I'm saying that democracies choose the laws to benefit the people who live in them, as opposed to dictatorships. Sometimes, the people in the democracies aren't smart enough to choose laws that benefit them (like the US states that made laws against vaccine mandates and had predictable healthcare rationing as a result), but that doesn't change the purpose of the democracy or its laws.
> we already have that, in many advanced economies
And those advanced economies are free to open up. Denmark already has. Canada, whether by having too low a vaccination rate or too little healthcare, is not among them. Hence, the need for mandates to get there.
> preventing someone from having a barbie on a certain day vs. firing someone from their job - not exactly two comparable situations
You're comparing a law with a punishment for breaking a law, which is a nonsensical comparison, as you apparently agree, but why make it? The key comparison is whether both laws are beneficial, and they are.
I'm not, "loosing your job" is not a punishment, it's an effect of the mandate. The punishment would be being fined or going to jail for still driving a truck despite the mandate.
