2 ms·
So basically lockdown for all, because restricting the rights of everybody is better than restricting the rights of some. Good luck convincing the courts that t
by detaro 5y ago
So basically lockdown for all, because restricting the rights of everybody is better than restricting the rights of some. Good luck convincing the courts that that's the minimal necessary restriction.
- tinus_hn 5y agoThere are more options than ‘lockdown for all’, but yes, it would be one of the things you could do if vaccinations were not available.
- detaro 5y agoBut vaccinations are available, so you likely can't do it legally.
- tinus_hn 5y agoThat’s for the courts to decide. Is a lockdown not allowed because forcing people to vaccinate is an option? Or is forcing people to vaccinate not allowed because lockdown is an option?
- detaro 5y agoForcing people to vaccinate is not really a tool to control infections right now, and more of an independent (also currently hotly debated) longer-term question. (I'm fairly certain its going to come for some jobs at least) And if applied as here, I doubt many would argue that "forcing people to vaccinate" is a weaker measure than "impose some restrictions on unvaccinated" (although the former is of course going to be a strong form of the latter)