Seems like all he really said was that people who refuse to get vaccinated should take responsibility for the fact that they're objectively a threat to other people and that dealing with the consequences of their own actions is ultimately their problem.
Interpreting that as him saying they should starve is certainly... creative.
> "How can we get food to them?" Chomsky told YouTube's Primo Radical on Sunday. "Well, that's actually their problem."
What if a majority group, maybe white Americans, decided that a minority group, maybe one with a high crime rate, like African Americans [1], was dangerous and should be segregated from society, and said that access to food was their problem to figure out? That they were a high-crime group, and it was dangerous to society if they continued to operate in it? I imagine you would be singing a different tune if those were the groups in discussion.
There's nothing wrong with counterfactuals in general, but you have to do it correctly. Doing it wrong leads to a strawman and that has very little value indeed.
Chomsky is arguing that unvaccinated people are a danger to those they come into contact with. Not a potential danger - a real danger. It's not like having brown skin; you can't choose not to have brown skin.
People are free to not be vaccinated; and other people are free to shun them.
Interpreting that as him saying they should starve is certainly... creative.