Hello again, @EnidSpyton 
Thank you for talking through how you feel about this. While, obviously, I disagree, this is the kind of discussion I’m genuinely very happy to have - and actually, I don’t think your view is unreasonable per se, it’s simply founded on a different set of principles about how to approach extreme circumstances (like the pandemic).
I don’t think that having, in this sense, different foundational views about how society should work is truly a sufficient thing, in and of itself, to ‘qualify’ someone as ‘being’ an anti-vaxxer. Where the grey area arises, for me, is in the fact that many people who claim to be arguing from principles, then go on to invoke storied anti-vaxxer arguments. Once someone is doing that, even if they are also claiming to be motivated by philosophical reasons, then they are - in literal terms - perpetuating the spread of anti-vaxxer views. But it is perfectly possible, I am entirely willing to concede this, to have an unblemished, scientifically robust understanding of the benefits of vaccination - and yet still to come down on the side of strongly opposing a mandate. I have no problem with that position, despite my strong disagreement.
Essentially, then, what drives my stance is a sort of ‘utilitarianism as far as possible, in a real-world setting’ (i.e. setting aside extremist, thought-experiment cases). In a nutshell: I believe a well-resourced, effectively organised mandate would ultimately cause the least suffering. Even then, it isn’t my preference - but it could, in theory, be done, whereas adequate medical literacy for the whole population literally cannot be achieved in a matter of weeks.