The COVID-19 pandemic presented an unprecedented situation for governments worldwide, forcing them to balance the need to protect public health with the need to protect individual freedoms that act as the foundations of a democratic society. Although the pandemic granted governments a unique justification for restricting certain liberties, such as bodily autonomy, it is undeniable that some limitations generated more controversy than others. One of these policies was vaccine mandates.

Being vaccinated is generally considered a matter of personal choice, protected by principles such as individual freedom and bodily autonomy. However, as vaccines are a proven method of preventing the spread of viruses during a pandemic, the refusal to receive vaccination actively puts the well-being of others at risk, infringing on their right to good health. 

Therefore, governments were justified in enforcing vaccine mandates to protect public health, just as they implemented other public health measures such as food safety regulations. These were explicitly achieved through vaccine requirements for specific activities such as attending school or traveling internationally. 

However, the enforcement of such policies was criticized for failing to be carried out in a non-discriminatory manner; for instance, individuals who were unable to receive the vaccine due to medical conditions were not exempt from the mandate requirements and were only granted alternative procedures such as rigorous testing a few months after vaccine mandates were first imposed. 

Ultimately, the debate over vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the ongoing tension between individual liberty and public health, reminding us of the difficult decisions that governments and societies must inevitably make in times of crisis.

차정우 강남포스트 학생기자  webmaster@ignnews.kr

<저작권자 © 강남포스트, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지>