What_Exit and D_Anconia got into a discussion about whether cops, first responders, etc would really quit over a vaccine mandate, whether that would really be so bad, and whether the alternative would be worse. I thought it was a fascinating and absolutely on-topic discussion; it’s pretty much the only conceivable “con” worth discussing, IMO. So why did WE say to drop it?
No, I really don’t. The thread isn’t about whether you’re pro-vaccine; it’s about whether you’re pro-mandate. I think most illegal drugs are bad but I oppose the laws against them because I believe the second-order consequences have done more harm than whatever good the bans have accomplished. Would it be off-topic for me to bring that up in a thread about whether meth should be legalized, or could I only discuss whether doing meth is a smart personal choice? And if I asserted that meth is more dangerous because it’s illegal, would other posters be hijacking the thread to dispute that? How is this different?
I agree with @Esprise_Me on this. It’s not really debatable that vaccines are a net good, so the only interesting question to discuss on whether the mandate is a good policy is whether the downsides of it are worth the upsides. People in important jobs getting fired because they don’t get vaccinated is (arguably) one of the downsides. Although I think you could also argue that it’s an upside; getting the dumbest, most anti-authority, most anti-medicine cops and paramedics to not be cops and paramedics any more would be a net improvement long-term, even if it results in some short-term pain.
Either way, it seems fairly central to the question of mandates.
Agreed. @What_Exit seems to have a rather unique view of what is on topic or off topic. In a thread about vaccine mandates and being for or against them and why, it seems very, very relevant to discuss if people will quit their jobs if a mandate is in place, and if so what the effects will be of that.