Province of Quebec: Is there a logical fallacy here?

So the premier of the province of Quebec has announced that the province will start imposing fines on the unvaxxed. 

Here was a response from one person:  "Will they do the same for the obese, smokers, drinkers and those who don't exercise?"

My question: Is the response a logical fallacy or a valid reaction? 

Yeah I do agree with the person above that this is pretty much a red herring , it doesn't give a good argument.

Additionally, using alcohol and cigarettes as an excuse here is incomplete. Whichever person said this is is also committing the base rate fallacy because they focus only on the individual harm of alcohol, not in terms of the population of people affecting it. Obviously Alcohol is not good for you, but from the stats I've seen the virus now has been killing people more commonly than alcohol and cigarettes both statistically conflated, yes.

Hypothetically, even if alcohol and cigarettes did do more damage statistically, it would not mean that we should absolutely take no look at the virus, whoever claims this would commit the nirvana fallacy .

And lastly, if hypothetically the government did REALLY look at the virus more if things like alcohol and cigarettes were more dangerous, then the government would commit a double standard in its priorities.

Just a few hypotheses to make it look clear :)

I'd say that it may be a slippery slope fallacy

This is a Red Herring.  Instead of presenting arguments about the issue presented (whether the government should fine the unvaxxed), the response attempts to divert attention another issue.  

It might be a legitimate question as to whether something should be done about the other high risk people, but if the response is an attempt to discredit the imposing of fines on the unvaxxed, then it's a Red Herring.

Both parties here assume the government should be allowed to mandate healthcare, which means individual responsiblity is negated. What remains is simply are policy discussion without principles. 

Technically, the "response from one person" is just a question.  We don't characterize questions as "valid" or "fallacious" ... it's just a question, so no, it's not a logical fallacy.

Having said that, there is an implication (not a direct statement, but just an implication) embedded in that question – that perhaps this particular tax on actions that can put pressure on the health care system might mark the beginning of other taxes on other actions or inactions that also put pressure on the health care system.  It's not clear whether the questioner sees those other taxes as a good thing or a bad thing.

That implication (if it is actually what the individual intended) could be slippery slope if the questioner is actually suggesting that the tax now on those who choose not to be vaccinated is likely to lean the future to further taxes like those in the question.  It might also represent the strawman fallacy if the questioner is claiming that this tax is intended to be the first of many.  

However, as with most implications, none of these points were actually made by the questioner.  If this question were part of an actual ongoing discussion, it wouldn't be surprising if the participants headed in directions not intended by the questioner or at least move the debate to things the questioner hadn't intended.  

If it were part of an exchange, it would be worth asking the questioner what (s)he is suggesting so that further discussion can see both parties on the same page.