Should speed limits and building codes be personal preference as well?
The ability to oppose forced medication is a right enshrined in many constitutions. The ability to go as fast as you want on a road is not.
Speed limits and building codes pretty much are "personal preference" in wide swaths of the US. Prior to some federal shenanigans many states had highways with no particular speed limit. Many rural areas do not enforce any building code for noncommercial non-dwelling structures and many exempt dwellings if they are being constructed by the property owner for themselves. And beyond this there are even more areas where laws are on the books but you're free to disregard them and enforcement will ignore you unless you do something so unreasonable they can't justify ignoring you.
Here in New Mexico, where there was no building code until the 1980s, we now have a tasty legacy of houses built not to code that are being sold to 2nd, 3rd and even 4th owners-after-building, and the stories are not great. People calling out contractors to fix this and that to be told that the entire plumbing/electrical system needs replacing to meet code. I own a copy of "The Owner Builder and the Code" and several other books from the heyday of the owner-builder "movement". I want people to be able to construct their own dwellings in ways that liberate their creativity and imagination. Decades on, however, I have to concede that this does have some downsides that need to be addressed.
A bunch of otherwise healthy people have died from the vaccine. You can argue that it's a numbers game, and that getting vaccinated is still less risky, but the decision should not be forced on anyone.
The latter has a several orders of magnitude higher death rate than the vaccines. So which option should the employer go for? Mandate everyone to get vaccinated or mandate everyone to mingle with the unvaccinated?
Since the number of deadly outcomes or side effects to the vaccine is so low the breakthrough cases in vaccinated individuals become significant when you compare the risks.
We should be strongly demonstrating that the vaccinated do not need to wear masks, distance, etc so that there are clear benefits to being vaccinated.
If the vaccines reduce the disease to nothing more severe than a cold or mild flu, we should be back to the same daily routines we had when those things were an ordinary risk at the workplace.
Besides, most people have enough life experience to intuitively know that there's no certainty in life. Being honest with people will do more to gain their trust than enhancing the truth for their own well-being.
I work from home but manage small sports club. I would never ask anyone for their vaccination status nor requiring them to be vaccinated to join.
Here's my take on that. Yes, some young, healthy people have died after taking the vaccine. Small numbers of young, healthy people die for no apparent reason all the time, but because vast numbers of people were not all getting the same vaccines at the same time, there was never a plausible common thread to tie them to.
It's not like this is the first time a vaccine is introduced.
I just don't think anybody should force anyone to get a shot. That should be a personal decision.
Most of them are from elderly people, but there are also a bunch of young people who have likely died from side effects. PEI reports 21 people under 40 who died from thrombosis after Astra Zeneca.
Biontech and Moderna had other side effects (myocarditis for young men), and also a bunch of young deaths.
Johnson is not common enough in Germany to make any reasonable judgements.
Severe side effects (not deaths) are around 0,2 per 1000 shots. (reported side effects, actual number may be higher)
Source (in German): https://www.pei.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/newsroom/dossiers...
I know there's a lot of misinformation about the vaccines going the rounds, but that doesn't mean that all reports of side effects are made up or statistical noise.