I won't comment on the particular case, but this is in general how public policy works, no? There's a rule set for everyone that, hopefully, makes sense for mos

I won't comment on the particular case, but this is in general how public policy works, no? There's a rule set for everyone that, hopefully, makes sense for most people, but it is enforced for everyone. Take speed limits for example. I'm sure a top driver, paying extra attention, can safely drive much faster, and probably still be safer than a lousy driver within the speed limit. But the rule's the rule and you have to abide by it. It's a nice analogy in a few ways I think. Speeding by 20-30% mostly doesn't kill anyone, it's overall rare, but when it goes wrong, you're likely to kill yourself and others, and involve rescue services, at a cost and some risk to them - a bit like refusing a vaccine. Driving slowly also induces some risks to the individual - cardiovascular from sitting down for longer, respiratory for being stuck in traffic fumes, less time to relax, whatever. These are probably very minor, but so is the risk of vaccine complications. Also, speed limits are kind of crude. Why do they go in round values of 10 kph/mph? Why not fine-tuned to the conditions - "here the curvature and visibility permits a max speed of 74 kph". They're not meant to be exact, they are meant to be roughly correct, easy to set sensibly and to police. There's also the aspect of "one rule for everyone". If I'm a legal, but not exceptional driver, and see better drivers drive faster on the roads, that erodes my obedience of the speed limit too, which for me, and most people, is actually a good speed limit. If I follow suit with the better, faster drivers, that ends badly. The message is clear: "everyone go below speed limit, anyone going faster is getting a ticket". I think vaccines are really the same. The novelty is that car driving evolved as an opt-in thing (even though it often isn't anymore, if you need a car to get around), whereas we're saying vaccines are kind-of mandatory. So while with cars, "meh you can walk if you don't like speed limits" (which often you can't), but with vaccines, "meh if you don't want this thing injected into you, you can't participate fully in public life". With driving, some people think they know better, can drive faster, and that the open road, and free fast lane, is a personal right - yet we don't make exceptions for them. Vaccinations are testable and enforceable, via pieces of paper - the means public policy is optimised on and honed for many decades. They do protect other people, to a debated, but certainly meaningful extent. They have an effect, apparently, even for people who did have the disease. It's crude but it works at scale. It's not exact, maybe some people had Covid and are immune, maybe some paper (peer-reviewed so definitely correct) shows that some gene makes people immune, but these are not great exceptions for public policy to deal with. I'm sure my analogy fails at some level of scrutiny, but overall I think it's decent.