[quote Chessie678]@SpringKit
I don't think conformity amongst governments is a convincing moral argument. By that logic, slavery / persecution of Jews, Christians etc. / racism / subjugation of women was all fine because all or most of the world was doing it at some points in history. It might show that you can get away with a particular behaviour against a certain group because the public will accept it and your neighbours aren't going to challenge you.
I don't think "unclean" is hyperbole here. I'm sure you don't use the word yourself because it is political charged due to the way it has been used in history. But the concept is exactly the same - this group and diseased and dangerous; this other group is safe.
The logic that subjecting the unvaccinated to this sort of detriment is ok because it's for health / scientific / data driven reasons and therefore the rationale is good doesn't hold to me. I think historic persecution of religious groups was wrong because persecution is wrong - not because actually these religious groups had sensible religious ideas which should have been respected. I'm sure people who persecuted (say) pagans in the past thought that their beliefs were stupid and dangerous and that the persecution was therefore justified. By the same reasoning, I think stripping fundamental rights away from a portion of the population based on their beliefs is wrong (with some caveats around how the criminal justice system functions). That said, I don't think the scientific rationale for the measures is particularly strong either.
One group has a somewhat higher likelihood of having one specific illness which is not a significant risk to the majority of the population. Within that group of unvaccinated people, there will be many who pose less of a risk than many vaccinated people (e.g. because they have little contact with the public or have recently had covid). There is very little evidence that restricting a relatively small percentage of the population from a list of specific activities and letting them do other activities will make a difference to covid transmission rates and it is even more of a leap to think that this will save lives in the long term given that most people will catch covid at some point. It's clearly much more about coercing people to get the covid without outright forcing them and scapegoating a particular group to blame for covid than it is about public health.
@containsnuts
Well yes it's true that many people can't access cinemas etc. anyway but I'm not sure that makes it better to make it illegal for another group from accessing these services. You could make the same argument about the apartheid - some people couldn't access the facilities closed to black people anyway so it doesn't matter that black people were also shut out from them? (I'm not comparing this to the apartheid, which was different and much worse for lots of reasons).[/quote]
Many of these people are unvaccinated because of misinformation, not because of deeply held beliefs. I think your premise starts to fall apart somewhat then. It cannot be some kind of persecution if they've simply been reading too much rubbish on Facebook - and I suspect that's the case, sadly.