I've been double jabbed and am about to get my booster this coming Friday. Hence, it cannot be said that I'm an anti-vaxxer. I do trust the pharma industry's and governments' scientists claims- ie, that this vaccine greatly reduces the chances of you getting severely ill/dying when infected.

However, that being said, I'm opposed to making the covid vaccines mandatory (or psuedo-mandatory by using bullying/coercive government tactics). I'm opposed because my personal opinion/world view regarding what is to be considered acceptable/moral is strongly based on individual freedom. In my view, adults should be free to do what they please as long as:
1) they take personal responsibility for the consequences of their choice of actions (ie: individuals pay the cost of the result their choices- they don't forcefully offload it to someone else) and
2) that those actions don't majorly impact other people who don't want to be involved/affected (where by "majorly impact", I mean something beyond the minimum of the norms that are required for a functioning modern society)

So how do I apply this stance for forming opinions about the covid vaccine?
Well, regarding people taking personal responsibility for themselves, it is my opinion that the government should give us deal: it is an individual's choice to get vaxxed, but for those that choose not to then the government will NOT provide any government paid for treatment for any direct covid illness or other conditions originating/exacerbated by covid.
And regarding the second requirement about not impacting others: the others are either going to be vaxxed or unvaxxed. In the case of the vaxxed- they in the main should be fine (if not- then the vaccine didn't work so being vaxxed or not for them made no difference) and for the unvaxxed* they made their decision to remain unvaccinated so they have to accept the consequences.

-continued below-

-form above -

Also, I would like to mention, that for this particular virus while it's reported that the current vaccines in many cases do reduce transmission there is still a not inconsiderable percentage of the vaxxed who will spread the disease when they get infected. And because it is so contagious we will never be able to completely stop the spread with just these vaccines. The reality is that this virus is here to stay- we need to learn to live with it if we are to return to a normal pre-covid life. Even if the whole population were vaxxed it is likely that you will eventually come into contact with someone who is contagious when we return to pre-covid lifestyles.

By the way: the author mentions smoking in the article. Reasoning from my principles, for me adult smokers should be allowed to smoke as much as they want but they shouldn't be able to access "free" government health services for any health conditions/problems stemming from their smoking. Nor should they be allowed to smoke around anyone that isn't a smoker and doesn't want their smoke.

*: there is the complication here that there is a very small percentage of the population that are cannot be safely vaccinated for medical reasons. But this doesn't really change the argument because as I say in the next paragraph it is likely that any given single person will eventually have a date with the virus, whether everyone is vaccinated or not.

The moral argument for vaccination is a spurious one.

It is wrong to suggest that those who choose to vaccinate are acting in a morally or ethically superior way to those who don't. They're getting vaccinated to protect themselves. They're acting in self-interest, not out of any noble consideration of the greater good.

Vaccination is an easy way to achieve a degree of protection. There are other ways that also give a measure of protection, but which require a much more sustained application of time, discipline, knowledge and money. These include mask-wearing and avoiding travel and crowds, but most importantly the ability and know-how to be able to strengthen ones own natural immunity.

Those who opt to protect themselves and others in this way are acting just as responsibly and ethically as those who opt for the pharmaceutical quick-fix. Both contain an element of risk. Both are responsible precautionary measures. We should all have the right to assess our own level of risk and choose our own method of protection.

Choosing not to vaccinate is not acting irresponsibly. The only irresponsible ones are those who deny the existence or seriousness of this virus and who take no measures whatever to protect themselves. They are a small minority.

As someone who understands and values holistic health and who knows how to achieve strong natural immunity, I object to the mindless conflation of two very disparate groups. I am not an irresponsible 'anti-vaxxer'. I'm an intelligent, well-educated, well-read, community-minded person who chooses to manage my own level of risk in my own way.

What have we become in this country? We're headed in the same direction from which emerged the horrors of the Gestapo, the Inquisition and the burning of so-called witches at the stake.

The vast majority of our population has been vaccinated. Those who choose not to vaccinate for whatever reason should be left alone and allowed to get on with their lives. Demonizing and excluding them will do little to minimize disease risk. All it will do is further divide and weaken us as a nation.

I should clarify my footnote about those who are unvaxxed due to medical reasons since what I wrote doesn't explain my position. These people should be able to access government paid for health services relating to covid infections, since they didn't have much of a choice to be vaccinated or not. However, they shouldn't be the basis of an argument to justify mandatory vaccination of the whole population, since as a said, eventually it is probable that most of them will eventually come into contact with someone with the virus whether the whole population is vaxxed or not (after pre-covid lifestyles return).

people you refer to are in fact unvaccinated, rather than just those who happen to have differing moral convictions.
Yuyutsu,
In the interest of the Nation there is a moral obligation for vaccination. Those with medical conditions are of course exempt.
In my view there is no differing moral conviction that overrides the moral obligation for the health of all !

Individual, as this virus is no longer (and in fact never met the dictionary definition of one) a pandemic, there is no great danger to the health of the general population. At no stage was it widespread through the community and at no stage was it causing large scale deaths outside of very specific locations and cohorts.
Less than 10% of the Australian population have contracted the virus and when testing is done of subsets of the community who should have very high rates thanks to direct contact with those who have tested positive, been where positives have been or have been showing at least two of the possible symptoms, typically less than 2% have tested positive.
In other words it has never spread as widely or as quickly as the CHOs, the Premiers and the Ministers for Health had been claiming. Outside the identified cohort of compromised individuals, the actual adverse health effects have been very minimal.
By getting vaccinated you are protecting no-one as it is very unlikely that you will ever come into contact with anyone carrying the virus and as with any contagious condition, if you believe that you may be carrying the condition, it is your responsibility to then self isolate for a reasonable period of time.
I'm living in an area that in spite of a population of at least half a million, there have been no cases of the virus in the community at all. And yet people have been conditioned to believe that they are "at risk".