So the latest data- especially past month cohorts in UK- appears to make it increasingly clear that:

• Vaccines are proving to be ineffective at stopping the rate of infections and spread of current variants
  
• Vaccines are continuing to be effective in reducing the mortality and serious hospitalization of current variants

Do these two points prove true?
Because, and I think this is extremely important: This negates the argument for vaccine mandates
If vaccination is not proving to be effective at stopping the spread of covid-19, then it becomes a matter of personal health choices and outcomes, and the argument premised on 'how it affects the rest of the population' weakens or vanishes. And any argument premised on "total ICU bed usage and shortage of healthcare" is more applicable to non-vaccine factors like obesity, smoking, etc. Should fast food places, sugary drinks and junk foods be banned during the pandemic since obesity is the true factor in mortality?

If we can't stop covid-19 from spreading in the populations but we can make it mostly harmless with vaccines, then there is no reason why vaccines should be mandated.
Which of course, also flies in the face of the Biden administration's promise not to mandate vaccines, while he ran for president.

If you can pay the bill you can stay as long as you want in hospital if you ask me.

Enjoy the delicious food they give you.

Or better yet, go outside while tested positive and enjoy 24/7 hotel with workout coaches.

Is it fair for people who have heart attacks or strokes be turned away from full ERs because some people refuse to get vaccinated? These choices don't happen in a vacuum. Covid is be deadly, but the real struggle is the 10% of cases that end up in the ER and overwhelm the system for everyone else.

Is it fair for people who have heart attacks or strokes to be turned away from full ERs because some people shoved their piehole full of big macs and stuffed crust pizzas?
No choices occur in a vacuum. America has long rejected stripping significant personal freedoms in the name of the nebulous and diffuse benefit of society without proximate harm to others. The last time that philosophy was seriously tested was prohibition, and that experiment didn't end well. Vaccines won't unclog our ERs, unclogging our arteries actually would. Its fat people who use up all the ICU space, its fat people who drain our healthcare resources. I don't see how limited health resources makes any better argument for making otherwise healthy people forced to get vaccines than there is for making landwhales to run on a treadmill.

Right but beating back obesity is a lot more complicated than getting a free vaccine. If there was a shot that prevented obesity, I wouldn't be surprised if the government-mandated it given the drain it has on public health. Vaccines have been mandated as a public health matter for 200 years. Polio, small pox, measles, whooping cough all either dont exist or barely exist due to vaccination campaigns and mandates.

This isn't new, the feigned outrage is new.

did you just say "abracadabera"?

Scientific Study Concludes That 5G Exacerbated COVID
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fKEks2jfxz82/

its not free and it sure da fug isnt a vaccine.

stop being a morbidly obese trash, and if you're younger than 65 you wont get near hospital

Not a scientific study. It's A review paper with no real underlying sources.

Obesity is a far more deadly pandemic than Covid-19 and there are effective medical procedures we have developed to mitigate obesity. If the disease is that much more of a societal issue, doesn't it merit taking more invasive action than just a shot? Malabsorptive operations, gastric bypasses and adjustable bypass bands are a thing. Obesity is the leading root cause of death and bariatric surgery can lead to a 60% or more reduction in all-cause mortality and 10+ year average extended lifetime. LAGB has something like a 0.05% or less lethal complication rate and a ~52% reduced mortality rate. If we were mandating procedures that would keep people healthier and reduce the overall burden on our healthcare sector, there would be a better argument for strapping piggies to a table and cuffing their stomachs.

The law of the land is still set in the supreme court precedent of Buck v Bell, which established that the overall benefit of society could use the same arguments of mandatory vaccination and apply them to invasive, destructive surgeries- namely, mandatory sterilization of retarded women so they'd stop having little retard babies. As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr put it;



If not for arguments of red blooded American libertarianism and hostility towards centralized, oppressive authority- why not?