Driving drunk doesn’t imply violating driver’s own bodily integrity against their choice. A drunk driver risks other people’s lives and it’s a punishable crime.

> Driving drunk doesn’t imply violating driver’s own bodily integrity against their choice.

I'm not sure what you mean. Police would use force to stop a drunk driver from driving drunk.

The prerequisites of the applied force in the case of drunk driving would be driver’s acts of volition to choose to get drunk and to choose to drive afterwards.

What are the prerequisites of the applied force in the case of staying unvaccinated? What are the acts of volition that justify the force?

The force would be used to prevent unvaccinated people from participating in certain activities (like attending public indoor gatherings). It’s very directly analogous to drunk driving.

An unvaccinated person attending a public gathering risks other people's lives as well.

For some few exceptions. I am vaccinated and don't feel threatened by unvaccinated people at all. Yes, there are people with compromised immune systems, but I think it is on them to reduce the risk of exposure without having a mandate on vaccination.

It's not just about immunocompromised people. The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. If don't do it quickly, we're slowly "marinading" the virus in the vaccine, increasing chances for a vaccine-resistant mutation. It's kind of like why you're not allowed to stop a course of antibiotics half-way through.

> The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus.

There is no evidence that the virus can be get ridden of.

Well, we have gotten rid of other viruses in the past and it also makes sense in theory given what we know about viruses, so the burden of proof is on those claiming we can't.

If a vaccinated person can transmit covid, doesn't the same issue exist?

Just like with drunk driving accidents, it is not binary.

And not the same thing at all. It's dishonest to say:

> An unvaccinated person attending a public gathering risks other people's lives as well.

Because it implies there is no risk for the vaccinated to spread disease.

Are you saying it is dishonest to blame drunk driving because it implies there's no risk for the sober to hit people on the roads?

You seem to be arguing for the sake of it. I feel that my statement was pretty clear. If I am communicating poorly, I apologize, but there isn't much more I can add.

I am arguing for the sake of reason. Your statement was pretty clear, but based on a false assumption.

It’s also impossible to establish that one particular person infected another particular person. Drunk driving accidents are precise on actors.

What are you on about? Cars are actually a pretty good analogy.

Banning cars is equivalent to a full lockdown - useful temporarily if the issue is getting out of control, but despite working well, takes so much away from us that it's definitely not worth it long-term.

Banning drunk, unlicensed, etc. people from driving treats the issue more immediately without taking away ver much at all. Yes, drunkards won't get to drive, even if they're willing to risk it, so that's a negative effect for them, but society as a whole will gladly sacrifice that to protect everyone else (including them, even if they don't want it).

I am certainly confused. Do you think drunk driving on shared roads should be allowed or prohibited? I'm also not interesting in discussing whether anyone's "mind has been destroyed," but I am interesting in discussing whether specific ideas are good ideas or bad ideas.

>I remind you that banning driving would save lives

This is not remotely comparable, banning driving would (for most people) require changing entirely your lifestyle.

Getting a shot require a couple hours.

Banning driving would almost certainly cause more people to die for other reasons than those who currently die in automobile accidents.