Regardless of whether you think vaccines should be required or not, the mRNA COVID vaccines have objectively proven to be both safe and effective. Though not as effective as everyone would have liked at reducing spread, it certainly reduced severity of cases.
>Regardless of whether you think vaccines should be required or not, the mRNA COVID vaccines have objectively proven to be both safe and effective.
By all existing measures of safety they're by far the least safe vaccines on the market, and even their apparent effectiveness may have just been the result of their immune suppressive effect: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.... .
>In support of this hypothesis, Dr. Netea’s group reported dampened transcriptional reactivity of the immune cells and decreased type I interferon responses in vaccinated individuals to secondary viral stimulation (97), while our group described inhibition of adaptive immune responses and alteration in innate immune fitness in mice with this platform (99). The immune-tolerant environment induced by these vaccines is further supported by recent studies that have discovered a correlation between an increased number of prior mRNA vaccine doses and a higher risk of catching COVID-19 (100–102). Thus, these data suggest that these vaccines’ efficacy in decreasing disease severity and death might lie with their previously undiscovered immune suppressive characteristics.
The general idea that it is "authoritarian" to force people into isolation to prevent them from harming others is obviously absurd (imagine an airborne disease with Ebola-like mortality).
You could probably make an argument that it wasn't justified in this case using information known at the time but you have to actually make that case, not resort to appeals to "freedom" or information we know now.
