Good point, I'd forgotten the soda wars.Attempts have been made on a local level in some areas to impose mandates on an individual's diet. Remember the push by the former mayor of NYC to ban XL sodas?
As for the vaccines, I look at in in much the same way as I've looked at the whole mess. I'm mid-40's, relatively active, no underlying conditions and generally healthy. I'm among the lower end of the at-risk types. But I've never made it about me. Not the vaccines or masks or social distancing.
But people that mean a lot to me are at the other end of the risk spectrum. Do I know for a fact that anything I've done has kept them safe? Nope.
I can comfortably say I've done everything that's been asked of me to try to minimize the risk for them, though. Maybe it's helped. Maybe it's helped someone I've never met. I'll probably never know for certain, but one thing I do know for certain is that none of it's hurt me any.
On the "risk to others", we need to talk about tradeoffs. "Anything you can do can kill you, including doing nothing." It holds for your interactions with others too. A variety of studies have pointed out that suicide rates have skyrocketed during the various lockdowns. Most people do better if they periodically have positive face-to-face social interactions with other people. If someone is "high risk" and so most popele stay away from them... well, the virus will probably get them anyway. Unless you live in a sealed bubble and sterilize everything you eat, drink, and breath, an airborne virus is hard to beat. In the meantime, what are the odds they decide life isn't worth living, and no one sees the warning signs because no one they know actually, you know, SEES them? If fewer people see grandma, is grandma more or less likely to remember to take her heart medicine?
Then lets talk about anitbodies. We can argue about how long immunity will last, but while you've got antibodies you're far, far less likely to give someone else the disease than someone who's been "vaccinated" is. Yet our glorious leader's executive order doesn't allow antibody testing as an alternative. So how is it about "risk to others"?
Turn it slightly. Say you're a company. Should you, as a good business decision, require your employees to be "vaccinated"? Deaths so far have been HIGHLY concentrated in the peripheral population. Most companies employ, almost entirely, members of the prime population. Getting the jab(s ) isn't risk free either - and mandating them will cost you some of your workforce even if you get lucky and none of them die. Oh, don't forget liability for the ones who die or become ill due to the "vaccines" you made them take. Maybe you'll win the lawsuits, but you'll have to pay to fight them. In fact if you're really cold-blooded you might calculate how many FORMER employees will die prematurely and stop drawing benefits. Hard to make a compelling business case if you add it all up. If we're talking ethics, how about the ethics of forced treatment? How about the ethics of mandating that an employee reveal private medical information? (Wait, isn't that illegal? Guess not anymore...)
Every time you drive your car on a public street you put others at risk.
How much is too much?
Apparently the .gov will decide for you from now on.