Also, not supporting mandated vaccination is not the same as being anti-vax. I encourage people to get vaccinated and think it is the intelligent thing to do but I don't support forcing people to get the shots.
Nobody is forcing anyone to get the shots. They're forcing them to own that decision and not take part in activities and parts of society negatively impacted by that decision.
If it was demonstrable that getting a certain percentage vaccinated would stop the spread then I could be convinced to support it. Since, especially with Omicron, it is demonstrable that there will be spread no matter how many people are vaccinated, I don't support it.
Doesn't it though? Or, just not as large an impact at as low a vaccination level as you wish? Do the charts and data showing the case rate in unvaccinated vs vaccinated not show that the vaccinated are way less likely to get (and hence spread) than the unvaccinated? Even with Omicron, do you honestly think the infection rate is the same for the unvaccinated as the vaccinated? After 1 dose, 2 doses, 3 doses?
I'm on team "let it rip since the only people likely to have a serious outcome are those who are unvaccinated."
No, I don't consider it an issue if a vaccinated person ends up knocked out and in bed for a few days like happens from other illnesses all the time.
Combined with the above, this represents an On or Off very digital and absolute view with no spectrum of degree of impact. Either you can spread or not. Either you'll get sick or not. Either it's hospital/death or not. This completely misses all the spectrum in between.
A vaccinated person who is infected is not definitively mild and no big deal. Sure, they are likely and statistically more often then not to have that outcome, but that's not the definitive outcome for everyone. Some small percentage of vaccinated who are infected and unable to fight it off will have very poor outcomes. It may be a very small percentage, but it's not 0, and it's not so small as to be completely negligible.
The "let it rip" plan includes driving that starting number up astronomically to a huge number. Thus, that very small percentage of a now HUGE number will be a large absolute number.
That's the plan. To ignore the absolute impact and only care about the relative impact.
It's like someone walking around EPCOT purposely knocking drinks out of random peoples hands. Sure, they're only doing it to 1 out of every 100 people, just 1%. But, we don't tell that 1 person too bad and just let it go. We remove that guy from the park and don't let them back in.