The discussion is (de facto) coerced vaccination vs. voluntary. I think that enough people will voluntarily vaccinate that the population-level effects of insuf

The discussion is (de facto) coerced vaccination vs. voluntary. I think that enough people will voluntarily vaccinate that the population-level effects of insufficient vaccination will be small. If so, the points about "endangering the lives of others" do not carry much weight, and the discussion of whether one still has freedom to make medical decisions is very relevant. If it could be mathematically proven that there is 0% risk of negative effects? Sure. Put a requirement for vaccination in the constitution. But the current RNA vaccines have not been tested at scale before, and empirical information about long-term effects is unknowable. Things are likely good based on current knowledge, but there is uncertainty. Anyone who wishes to enact population-level policies in such a situation is making a statement about the likelihood of an "unknown unknown" that is unsupported by data. In the light of this, it is very ethically problematic to mandate anything at this point. That's even if you're open to de facto mandates regarding medical procedures in the first place. Of course the consideration would be different if the disease had a 100% mortality rate, but such a situation would obviousy also affect people's decisions about whether to get vaccinated or not. You wouldn't see me presenting this argument of principles if that was the reality. You can't determine with an equation at what point such policies would be palatable, but you can make comparisons to other dangerous activities that affect others. Smoking. Driving a car, or speeding. Drinking alcohol. (De facto) mandatory medical procedures seem excessive in the light of our current policies against such behavior. One might make a different argument if the skepticism was so widespread that the vaccination program was ineffective, but let's revisit it if that happens.