0. The vaccines are incredibly effective, as evidenced by the almost zero rate of bad progressions. You can look up the studies for exact number, but I think mRNA was something like 80-90% effective against the original COVID-19, that's amazing
1. The risks you describe exist, but they also exist orders of magnitude higher when you catch COVID-19. So the choice isn't vaccine risk or no risk, the choice is vaccine risk or COVID risk. There is no if anymore, we will all get COVID. You can just get it without or with vaccine
2. The unvaccinated have much higher rates of bad progressions and might die before even reaching the hospital (for mistrust as well as medical reasons) and right now we have much more vaccinated than unvaccinated so we have more vaccinated people in the hospital than unvaccinated but look at who dies/gets damaged and which of the unvaccinated cases would have been preventable.
3. This argument is just empirically wrong https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/04/opinion/covid-vaccine-kid...
4. This argument is also wrong even if recovery immunity was for life (which is unsure), since as I said, we'll all get COVID, just that the vaccinated cases will be much milder and much less likely to wind up in the hospital.
These arguments are, fundamentally, not sound. And there are big difference between vaccine mandates, no mandates and bans. For mandates and bans to stand up in courts and democratic review, even as the ruling party you need to show evidence for your position since you'll force it onto other people. For the effectiveness of vaccines, we have that evidence, as well as a collapsing medical system. For a ban, we don't. So unless people with anti-vax beliefs completely abandon democratic principles (which I hope they wouldn't in those numbers) they could not institute a ban. In any case, my comment was aimed at highlighting this distinction: a vaccine mandate, like a lockdown, is/was justified by the conditions, not just dictatorial abuse, no matter how much those that don't like it scream about it. A ban would not. So it's a completely different thing to institute a ban at 60 % anti vax sentiment vs. a mandate at 60% evidence based decision making
These arguments are, fundamentally, not sound. And there are big difference between vaccine mandates, no mandates and bans. For mandates and bans to stand up in courts and democratic review, even as the ruling party you need to show evidence for your position since you'll force it onto other people. For the effectiveness of vaccines, we have that evidence, as well as a collapsing medical system. For a ban, we don't. So unless people with anti-vax beliefs completely abandon democratic principles (which I hope they wouldn't in those numbers) they could not institute a ban. In any case, my comment was aimed at highlighting this distinction: a vaccine mandate, like a lockdown, is/was justified by the conditions, not just dictatorial abuse, no matter how much those that don't like it scream about it. A ban would not. So it's a completely different thing to institute a ban at 60 % anti vax sentiment vs. a mandate at 60% evidence based decision making