It was never a choice. And that is what the issue is.

Quite obviously it’s undefined and depends on the context. More important is the assessment of risk versus reward. When the benefits outweigh the possible costs by enormous margins it is entirely responsible to encourage people to ignore any risks and irresponsible for anyone to overstate them and worry people into making irrational decisions.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Lets play devils advocate.

In Spain there is a new virus that is transmitted by ticks (currently). The mortality rate is 40%.

A vaccine is released with a risk of side effects, the worst of which could be death. The risk is far smaller than it is if you catch it.

Currently, its only those who get bitten by ticks so I would expect a lot of people would say no to the vaccine.

But what if it infects mosquito's? And the chances of catching it increase dramatically.

I would then expect a far larger take up of the vaccine.

It's all about chance and risk and is a judgement call.

What planet are you on? It was mass coercion tactics. It was very much 1940s Germany.

In some countries you could not leave your front door without it.

Essentially it was either take it or be excluded from society.

In America people lost their jobs even the IT workers who worked from home had to take it or loose their jobs.

Which is exactly how it ought to have been, at the beginning at least. Those advocating for freedom of choice seem to forget that others have that right too. If they decide they don’t want to mix with the unvaccinated and they constitute the majority, or our representatives decide on their behalf, then it’s their wishes that are paramount.

Anyone then deciding not to be vaccinated has to accept that the consequences of their decision will be social isolation. That’s the personal choice. Once the situation became clearer then a more relaxed attitude prevailed, unwisely in my opinion.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I always wondered how the drugs were even labelled as vaccines? Surely the idea of a vaccine is that you don't catch the disease? Obviously, I must be mistaken.
How is even less COVID calculated? You get a bit less COVID with a vaccine? Doesn't seem particularly scientific.
Give it a few years and there will be the admittance that the vaccines were insufficiently tested, rushed and ineffective. Give it a few more years and the drugs companies might even admit that side-effects were more widespread than expected and not presented fairly to patients.
The God like trust in these vaccines is like a cult. There's no balance in a debate with the brain washed.

Red and Blue Army!