But a vaccinated person may still be carrying the virus. The vaccinated person poses a greater risk to the unvaccinated person than vice versa.
A non-smoker is a non-smoker and can't inadvertently blow cigarette smoke in my face.
Yes and No. (obviously yes to the last line)
1. The unvaccinated person (in the overwhelmingly vast majority) has CHOSEN to retain that status.
2. A vaccinated person is less likely to both contract COVID and then spread it compared to unvax. So I suspect going forward the majority of COVID transmissions will originate from unvaccinated individuals.
3. If two people were sitting next to each other in 2022 and one was vaccinated and one wasn't, I know who I'd be betting on to have COVID.
I understand that smoking is not contagious (unless peer group pressure counts) so the comparison isn't perfect. Perhaps it would be like sitting in a restaurant overseas next to a smoker and a non smoker, neither of whom are smoking at the time. One is far more likely to pick up a cigarette and ruin your dinner than the other.
Plus the whole point of the mandate (whether on pax or staff) is to avoid having these issues in the first place.
My main point, which may have been lost in my attempt at comparison, is that mandates are in line with the beliefs and choices of up to 92% of the adult population. Thus in a democracy, that doesn't seem heavy handed. That's without even considering the rules of overseas governments as well.