I agree. We should take all views into account for policy decisions. The majority are not always right.
The question here is an age old discussion of libertarianism versus the common good. At some point a line is drawn and it is at this intersection the debate is had.
However, the debate needs to made in an authentic and generous way. We should not dismiss opinions simply because we don’t agree with them. We should engage with the substance of those ideas.
There are, of course, some opinions which overreach. It is not credible or honest to suggest the scientific method of peer review to harness the opinions of a diverse scientific intelligentsia who have “no skin in the game”, are somehow part of a great conspiratorial mindset with ulterior motives.
But, it is equally important to understand the real reasons why people may disagree, in this context with vaccine mandates, and what their true underlying reasons are.
Otherwise, the conversation descends into proving the “other” wrong and leads to no consensus and simply polarises us further.
This is not limited to the current subject but is an unfortunate trend across many areas of, for want of a better phrase, social justice topics.
Is there a middle ground where we can seek to accommodate each other? We may not be able to change minds, but we may be able to create practical solutions to allow for our differences.