I think your point--which is spot-on--is that a lot of the outraged reactions appear to be from people who are unaware (or unwilling to acknowledge) the very long history of compulsory vaccination (and who probably had such vaccines themselves as children).
That's not to say that any mandatory medical intervention shouldn't be treated with serious consideration, but the unwillingness to acknowledge precedent is bizarre and, I suspect, to some degree dishonest.
Second, two of the three available are still under EUA, and the one that is approved is of a new type of vaccine that became approved through a very unconventional route, which has some folks cautious. Those other vaccines you mention are well-established and have been proven over time and through clinical testing to be safe and effective. COVID vaccines have proven to be only effective at reducing reactions, but not very effective at reducing spread.
Note that a typical clinical trial lasts years[0] - phase II usually takes 2-3 years and phase III takes an additional 2-4 years. We've had these vaccines for less than one year; if this was a typical vaccine, it'd be only part-way through phase II trials.
And now it's mandated by the government; get this shot, some of which are using new technology, that has had shortened clinical trials or lose your livelihood (because, at $14k per infraction, I don't see many large companies bothering to offer testing as an alternative unless it's for the CEO or other executives; it's just too much liability for an easily-replaceable lower-wage employee).
> but the unwillingness to acknowledge precedent is bizarre
That's because your precedent isn't an exact match, and has had easy alternatives and ways to opt-out.
To your other point, the vaccines do reduce transmission, as far as I can tell (e.g. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mounting-evidence-suggests...).
Now, to be perfectly serious, I do think that any efforts at compulsory--or, as in this case, incentivized, since testing remains an alternative--medical measures exist in a tension between the utilitarian and the libertarian point of view. We should certainly be cautious about mandating any medical procedure, and do our best to preserve alternatives (like testing, or mask wearing, or by limiting mandates to as narrow a scenario as necessary).
But I don't think the debate is helped by getting the facts wrong.
For example, should flu vaccines be mandatory to attend school? Historically they have not been in any large degree (to my knowledge). If you look at the IFR for those age groups for flu (varies somewhat by strain) and covid, then you'll see that they are generally very close. So we have to ask what changed, because it doesn't appear to be the value proposition.
There's probably a reasonable debate to be had about requiring people to disclose vaccination status (but, again, significant precedent)--but I do think the hysterical reactions sound a bit funny when viewed as a reaction to being forced to spit into a cup once a week.
People keep acting surprised that other people would say no and also object to not having a choice.
Then there's the immunocompromised people who react poorly to vaccines and programs such as this are trying to corral them into a one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination program.
I think this is a strawman argument as virtually everybody is aware of past childhood vaccine requirements and acknowledges that they existed for a long time.
What might make this Covid vaccination and decision process different from those in many peoples' eyes is that:
* Past vaccines took years of development and testing before being applied to the public and were not rushed through any approval process. Covid vaccines in contrast use a new technology, were rushed through the approval process in a political process, and in fact are still technically in clinical trials. To many people, not enough time has passed to see about any possible long-term health impacts, fertility problems, or other issues. And obviously, discussions of short-term health problems in social media are suppressed or minimized too. Personally, I would argue that trying to vaccinate all people (especially the young) for such a low individual risk is one of the most irresponsible risk-management decisions in human history.
* Dr. Fauci and other health experts have spent much of the last 18 months either lying (remember experts insisting that masks are pointless before doing a 180) or being wrong about many things. Is it a wonder that people don't trust them?
* The media is the boy who cried wolf. They spent the last 5 years hyperventilating about Orange Man to the point that anything they say now is viewed through a partisan lens. Sorry, but if public trust is frittered away on political motives, don't cry now that you're telling the truth this time.
* The medical establishment seemed desperately against even trying alternative medical treatments (HCQ, Ivermectin) due to the vaccines emergency use authorization being tied to no treatments being available. How would a normal person react to the idea that there's a possible alternative treatment from a cheap already tested drug? You'd express some hope and be willing to try it, but express doubts about the treatments due to the limited studies available that don't show good enough results. Instead, we get a pile of propaganda labeling a legitimate medical drug as only a "horse dewormer".
* The focus is not on health and safety (which should be the goal), but only vaccination. Millions of people have had Covid and have natural antibodies: why isn't Covid antibody testing a suitable substitute for vaccination? Has even one health leader recommended steps to lose weight and get some sunshine for instance despite the clear worse Covid health outcomes for fat people with Vitamin D deficiencies? Or take NYC's draconian vaccine requirements to visit a ball game as an example. You're not allowed to attend a game if you're not fully vaccinated, but you can walk from the ballpark to a vaccination clinic, get "the jab (TM)", and immediately go attend the same ballgame even though the science says you're not immune. Everything about public policy is oddly specific about urging vaccines and incredibly creepy right now.
No, they have always been against use of drugs that have not been shown useful. That is the job of the FDA. It seems you aren’t aware that they did approve some treatments? Didn’t really affect the vaccine development, since the two aren’t really that dependent: their goal is to promote the best option.
> Has even one health leader recommended steps to lose weight and get some sunshine for instance despite the clear worse Covid health outcomes for fat people with Vitamin D deficiencies?
Yes, they are surprising reluctant to engaging in victim-blaming. You aren’t the only person who heard these may be helpful; I think it was pretty widely popularized since the beginning that poor health is a risk factor.
As I noted elsewhere, in many jurisdictions it is, as is testing.
In fact, as the very article upon which you are commenting notes, under the new OSHA rules those who do not want to get vaccinated can simply take a test once a week instead!
I admit, some mornings I have a bit of dry mouth, but after my morning coffee I always have enough spit to hock a loogie into a cup. For science and the greater good.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/school-immunization-exe...
[0] https://calmatters.org/health/2020/09/california-doctor-scho...
They were also more numerically effective at keeping people from turning into a carrier, but they had the benefits of decades of tuning.
When I was in school (both K-12 and college), my schools just accepted a paper document (trivially forgeable) that stated what vaccines I had received and when.
