It’s not clear what your argument is. I agree with you that reducing medical expenses is being used by some as a justification for vaccine mandates. The data you provided also clearly shows vaccines reduce hospitalizations.
Because you're engaging in bad faith. My argument is clear:
>>We have never used this justification to institute invasive laws to prohibit habits that lead to obesity, or to prohibit drug-use or alcohol consumption for that matter
The question is when we have a right to infringe upon another party's bodily autonomy. None of these vaccine mandate advocates would be calling for any type of infringement if it related to refraining from irresponsible behavior like over-eating, alcohol consumption, drug use, or high-risk sexual activity.
> None of these vaccine mandate advocates would be calling for any type of infringement if it related to refraining from irresponsible behavior like over-eating, alcohol consumption, drug use, or high-risk sexual activity.
It’s a false equivalency. Addiction cannot, today, be cured with a shot.
Deterrence can very often shape behavior. Addictive behavior can be discouraged with legal disincentives. Sexual promiscuity involving high-risk intercourse can be discouraged with harsh prohibitions. Addiction exists on a spectrum, and those further from the extreme addiction end can often be discouraged through strong-arming social intervention.
But for the vaccine mandate supporters, who oppose laws to hold accountable people who burden the healthcare system through over-eating, drug and alcohol abuse or high-risk sexual activity, virtue signalling is more important than saving lives, or punishing MAGA types is more important than respecting rights. Hence the inconsistency.
The so-called progressive movement, which now fully backs the vaccine mandate, has NEVER been for the War on Drugs, even when it hadn't failed. And the kinds of behaviors that the political left regards as protected vices are not limited to those engaged in by addicts. For example, high-risk sexual activity that leads to HIV infection rates 100X higher among gay men than the general population, is not associated with any addiction, and yet the vaccine mandate supporters by and large would be the type that would be aghast at any suggestion of deterring such behavior with punitive government measures.
As I said, the current mandate and OP are matters of workplace safety. You cannot contract HIV under normal workplace conditions, so it is not equivalent or germane to this discussion. Likewise, employers in the US are free to require invasive tests for drugs and alcohol at will, and discriminate against those who abuse them.
I'm not addressing your characterization of a particular group of people (liberals) because that is 100% your opinion and largely speculative.
This thread, and the OP are discussions of a vaccine mandate for workplace safety. OSHA has wide authority to regulate workplace safety and implement standards.
