It's relevant in the context of mandates, because the person it not being pushed into the road to save the lives of those around them.Why does it being mandatory make a difference? The people who have refused to be vaccinated have done so while it was not mandatory. My point is that have a poor ability to assess risk, not whether taking the risk is mandatory or not.
Your invisible car argument is irrelevant, the evidence is that pedestrians get hit by cars. I'm sure that the majority are not done on purpose therefore in most cases neither saw each other despite neither of them being invisible.
Of course someone who is in favour of mandates will need to quickly dismiss a case like Sergio Aguero as it's not only a perfect example of why people are concerned or hesitant, but also of why any medical procedure should require consent and not be mandated. You're not really going off script by downplaying it,I know you are saying Sergio Aguero was a great argument, I'm saying that it's not a great argument & gave the analogy of it being mandatory for children to go to school despite the risk of dying on the way to school or at school (which you then ignored). You haven't given any new argument about why Sergio Aguero is a better argument, so we aren't at stalemate. You have merely refused to offer anything to back up your statement & instead just blindly restated your position.
If you could give a reason why you think Sergio Aguero is a great argument, then please go ahead.
Who is liable for his loss of earnings now? It's not the vaccine manufacturers because they have an exemption. I'm not saying we should feel bad for the millionaire but I'm sure there are people in less fortunate situations with similar outcomes.