It was a response to the insinuation that the vaccine is blanket easier.

Mechanically, losing weight is strictly easier. Psychologically you really can't say one way or the other and thinking you know people's mindset to say one is easier than the other is bad faith argumentation.

So, whether or not one is easy. That's what it all hinges on? Very flimsy.

So it hinges on how different the psychological difficulties of accepting vaccination vs. "just eating less for years" are. Given how many vaccinations people already accept vs. other diseases, and the fact that any such irrational fears need to be surmounted just twice, as opposed to resisting (irrational) urges to eat every waking hour for years, it strikes me as being unlikely that even a serious fear of needles is even remotely as high a hurdle.

The thing is: people that are overweight but try to lose weight will nevertheless struggle. But certainly from how they talk people resisting vaccination are not trying to overcome their own limitations; i.e. the problems are not really comparable.

While there's a hypothetical world imaginable where the two would be equally difficult, it seems hell of a lot more plausible that the issue isn't a psychological hangup, it's conscious intent.

But if this is about people choosing to impose costs on others, then it's totally reasonable to force the issue or otherwise ensure that those making those choices bear the burden of the consequences - rather than innocent bystanders.

Insofar as people have real hangups, rather than making poor (but conscious) choices - sure, it sounds reasonable to help them - and that actually happens! People with fears of needles and the like can get extra help to get through the difficult (for them) ordeal, and perfectly fair.

Yes, this is entirely about people choosing to impinge on others, and I don't see how it's been established that a weight loss mandate is fundamentally different than a vaccine mandate, except in the handwaving around details that really don't seem to be central to the issue. And I think people are taking the idea of forced medical treatments far too lightly.

Any argumentation amounts to handwaving if you squint just right.

The argument brought forth by various people is clear: it's more difficult because it involves effort much more consistently, for a much longer period of time. You don't have to appreciate the argument; of course.

As to objecting to forced medical treatments: while that discussion is relevant to the appropriateness of an (almost) mandated vaccination campaign; it's not related to how difficult it is to diet vs. be vaccinated. The fact that you bring it up makes it look like you've made up your mind on vaccine mandates and aren't considering various arguments on their merits to support a conclusion on mandates but rather the reverse: that you're picking and choosing arguments based on whether or not they support your pre-conceived notion.

Now, that doesn't really bother me, but it does make me curious: why do you oppose vaccine mandates? And why this mandate but not others we've had for decades?

I oppose forced medical procedures as a default position because it represents the ultimate violation of a person by the state, and has had a long and dark history of abuse and atrocities.

So what about other vaccine mandates, then - are those equally problematic?