HC Poll - Do you believe it is right to allow people to discriminate on the basis of vaccination status?, page-185

The nuts and bolts of my aversion to this governmental overreach are contained in your answer. The State can't justify invading the sanctity of one's person when the apparent dangers/risks/deaths/spread/contagion etc can be contained in something as low-tech as a Woolworths or IGA using nothing more than masks and some basic hygiene. Remember, no outbreaks to any sort despite hundreds of millions of visitors to supermarket with a roughly 50:50 vaxxed:unvaxxed spread.

Secondly, sadly some people definitely are more susceptible to Covid than others, and almost all of that cohort are extremely old. Equally sadly, they can die just as easily from infection by an asymptomatic carrier (or otherwise) who has been vaccinated. Vaccination of others does not protect this cohort from the illness or death.

So given that:

1) Vaccination does not prevent transmission.
2) a case of Covid can kill a susceptible citizen just as easily from an unvaxxed individual as a vaxxed one.
3) In areas where the most basic attention to hygiene and masks are worn - supermarkets - hundreds of millions of vaxxed-unvaxxed mingling has taken place with literally zero transmission. Even unknowing asymptomatic carriers of Covid haven't transmitted Covid within the confines of a Supermarket, butcher or Pharmacy.
4) there have been a very large number of adverse reactions to the vaccines, in fact very few people suffer no reaction at all. The severity of the reactions moves through the spectrum up to and including (in rare cases) death.

.....I can't see anything remotely close to justification for forced vaccination across the population, economically coerced or otherwise.

If the vaccines were this, or the vaccines were that, or the vaccines were both this and that and a bit of something else, I could possibly entertain it. But vaccination is not the answer. Take Gibraltar, a small but statistically significant locale that (I think) was the first place to be fully vaccinated. 100% coverage, and 14,000 boosters have been given since the beginning of October, and they have shot up to 50 cases a day. Full vaccination coverage does not prevent the dangers to our vulnerable.

Add to that a recent paper published in Lancet:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext#

....that the Pfizer vaccine was only 88% effective in preventing infection (in a retrospective study) for the first month after a second jab, but only 47% effective at preventing infection after five months. That's in Lancet, take it or leave it, but these people who are (decaying over time, but still counted as vaccinated) 47% covered can still kill swathes of old and comorbid people if they come into close contact with them. Do you know any old, rickkety people who would balk at unvaccinated person coming to visit them, but would think that a 47% covered vaxxer would be just swell?

But literally millions of unvaccinated people wafting through supermarkets haven't infected a single customer to date. Not one.

The new normal is masks, the new normal is personal hygiene, the new normal is being personally responsible for your behaviour. That is the best defense against Covid. If someone wants to take the vaccine, go ahead, but mandates are just beyond the pale.