| > As for my examples, they were hit by COVID a month before vaccines were made available to them I'm sorry for your relations that caught it, but my question was rhetorical. Using unvaccinated people's suffering doesn't help the argument that we should force people to get vaccinated against their will, if the vaccines work for people who want to take them. If you suffer when you are unvaccinated-by-choice, then that is on you. > 1. Less reservoirs for viruses to mutate into more harmful strains. As opposed to the population that has taken the vaccine, but is still capable of catching it due to "break through cases"? Wouldn't a "leaky" vaccine cause more mutation due to evolutionary pressure than people catching it and building immunity? > 2. There are people who are immunocompromised , who cannot take vaccines . They are protected by those who are healthy and have been vaccinated. Why are they "protected", and the people who aren't vaccinated by choice not "protected"? > 3. >90% of all recent COVID deaths in the US have been of unvaccinated persons. A non trivial percent of the vaccinated dead by COVID were immunocompromised who were infected by unvaccinated folks. What happens when an vaccinated person has a break through case and gives it to an unvaccinated person who is immunocompromised? > If these reasons cannot convince you, I don't know what can. I'm not convinced. This seems more like an ethics litany than a reason we should a) create two classes of citizenry (the vaccinated and the unvaccinated) or b) violate people's body autonomy "for their own good". |