The way I see it is that if you are going to restrict freedom's based on a status, then everyone should have had the option to attain that status before those r

The way I see it is that if you are going to restrict freedom's based on a status, then everyone should have had the option to attain that status before those restrictions are in place. If the government is controlling access to that status, then it is a selective infringement of rights as decided by the government. In this case the status is vaccinated status, which in many countries is not widely available and the distribution is controlled by the government. However at the point where everyone has equal access to the vaccination (and uptake is enough to provide herd immunity) such restrictions are unnecessary. So as soon as it's fair to put in place restrictions, they are no longer necessary. I see the issue here but for the government it's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, or a lesser of two evils. Keeping restrictions in place for everyone whilst waiting until herd immunity is achieved is a severe restriction of freedoms for everyone, whereas loosing restrictions for those who are vaccinated is unfair but allows society to slowly return to normal.