> You can't drive drunk, you have to wear a seat belt, you can't build buildings out of straw or sticks (you silly pigs), you can't pour sewage into you can't have unprotected sex without disclosing it when you know you're HIV positive. You can't sell black tar heroin.

None of these are an irreversible medical treatment, so they don't even fall into the same category. Thus, this argument is disingenuous.

> You can't fly into various countries from a country with yellow fever without proof of vaccination against yellow fever.

This is reasonable for a vaccine that has been well-tested using already proven technology, and by "well-tested", I don't just mean widely tested. I mean tested long-term with a control group. The COVID vaccines are not tested in that way. The supposed control group got the vaccines pretty quickly, eliminating them as a control group.

Also, it's only reasonable because such countries require it of non-citizens, who don't get the same privileges as citizens of the country do. When a country starts requiring citizens to get vaccinated in order to keep their jobs, but don't require illegal immigrants to get vaccinated when they cross the border, it is clear that it's about power, and such an argument is disingenuous.

> You can focus on that "99+%" survival rate if you like (which involves ignoring that the actual survival rate greatly differs between different cohorts), but if you don't take into consideration the considerable amount of resources and effort that healthcare systems put into achieving that, you're only deceiving yourself.

That was always the survival rate. It hasn't changed since COVID appeared. Nothing the medical system did changed that. In fact, there's speculation that using ventilators caused protons and more deaths.

Also, would we have so many deaths if so many politicians had not made so many stupid or malicious mistakes? The mayor of NYC ignored it for a while. The governor of New York sent COVID-positive patients into nursing homes.

In actual fact, the virus might have had a better survival rate without those things.

> Lastly, as members of society, we have obligations to other members of our society. Pay tax to contribute to shared infrastructure, follow the laws passed by representatives of your country's voters, etc.

Sure thing. The problem? These mandates are not laws! They are executive edicts. Laws are passed by legislatures, and as far as I know, not a single one has passed an actual law. The mandates should not have the force of law.

Oh, and when there was such a law? It was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the only penalty was a one-time fine of $150 in today's money. I'd gladly pay such a fine and move on with my life.

However, that law and Supreme Court ruling were then used by the Supreme Court to justify the forced sterilization of women. It was playing with fire then, and it's playing with fire now. Do you want to live in a world where the government can make such medical decisions for you?

> I'm quite happy for people to remain unvaccinated if they ensure that they can never pass it onto others,

See the above point that there is no data that the naturally immune spread COVID.

> and if they waive their rights to medical treatment if they become ill.

Ill with COVID? Fine. I accept that. Ill with anything else? That would be disingenuous and pure power-seeking.

But even if ill with COVID, the fact that naturally immune people don't spread it means that you want such people to recover to them be useful as a shield against COVID for everyone else with their contribution to herd immunity.

Thus, in any case, denying medical treatment to the unvaccinated is not about health, it's about power.