> Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs. That is effectively c

> Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs. That is effectively coercing people to undertake a medical procedure for their own or for society’s good. The ethics of doing that should be concerning, considering the social and ethnic makeup of the vaccine hesitant, and the checkered history of coercive medical intervention. I’d much rather see the carrot used than the stick.