There is an argument that says that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine is morally obligatory for all who can do so safely. This is because, amongst other things, already-stressed hospitals may become overtaxed, and people who need emergency care may not be able to receive it due to unvaccinated individuals taking up the available beds.
One solution is to suggest, well, having more beds. Obviously, though, the beds are what they are—and even if there were more beds, healthcare workers are not in great supply right now (indeed, in normal times there are fewer than would be liked).
The principle seems to be something like the following: if your action (or refusal to undertake an action) a results in hospitals being relevantly overtaxed, then a (or the refusal to undertake a) is prohibited; or, if a would successfully combat this situation, then a is obligatory.
Set aside for now analogical, hypothetical counterexamples from other areas. I think we have an interesting scenario taking place now: the federal vaccine mandate.
How so? Let us assume for the moment that everyone who supports a federal vaccine mandate also supports that getting vaccinated is morally obligatory, at least for the reason noted above. While most healthcare workers are already vaccinated, some are not—and some oppose mandates enough that they will quit or be fired over it if the time comes. This will result in a not insignificant reduction in the workforce in healthcare. Even if only 10% leave, that is decimating that worker population. Will hospitals be relevantly overtaxed if 10% of nurses quit or are fired? It seems so. What about 5%? Imagine 1 in 20 healthcare providers/workers left their jobs over the next three months. Healthcare would be worse, not better, for it.
So then it violates the moral principle above, and as a result, a federal mandate for the COVID-19 vaccine should be morally prohibited, and hence opposed.
Here’s one potential objection: the nurses and other healthcare workers ought to receive the vaccine, and in so refusing will themselves be violating the moral principle above. Therefore, they ought to receive the vaccine.
Here’s my basic line of thought as a reply: first, in the moral principle, we’re not dealing with how we ought to respond to what people ought to do, we’re dealing with the response to what they have in fact done. In other words, it doesn’t matter why anyone is in the hospital (maybe the cut themselves in gross negligence, or were drunk driving, etc.): it only matters that they are in fact in the hospital. So it is here: it doesn’t matter why their leaving results in people being in the hospital (for evaluating whether vaccine mandates should take place): it only matters that they are in fact in the hospital.
Second, two wrongs don’t make a right. On a strict, non-nuanced version of the principle articulated above, the healthcare workers may indeed be violating their moral obligations by not receiving the vaccine, and hence being removed from their jobs. But that won’t excuse those who pass a federal vaccine mandate from their violation.
Finally, it is consistent to hold both that someone has a moral obligation to get the COVID-19 vaccine and that the government (and other actors) have a moral obligation to refrain from mandates. These are my main points: vaccine mandates are not as morally clear-cut as some would like; and given the stated logic, one cannot support both a vaccine mandate and the moral reasoning that is supposed to motivate it.
Standard disclaimer: I got the vaccine, and I am not opposed to everyone else getting it.