Refusing to take medicine is not the same thing as "planning on causing harm" no matter how many times you attempt to falsely equate the two things.
> I get that it didn’t jive with your narrative
Narrative has nothing to do with it, you can still believe what they're doing by refusing to take the medicine is the wrong choice and simultaneously acknowledge that their incorrect choice is not the same thing as the consequence levied upon them by a third party when they refuse to take the medicine.
> but it’s a reality that I’m describing, so sorry about that.
If you really think that's the case, then the inability to separate cause and effect is an enormous blind spot you should work on.
> Good job using the word “snow” in the middle of hand waving away actual material suffering while trying to accomplish
You were the one that insisted the word would change the underlying logical structure of the question, unsurprisingly it did not. That was my entire point all along.
> Are you personally willing to be unable to leave your house because it’s important to you that the municipal workers won’t be vaccinated?
That has absolutely nothing to do with the logical structure of coerced action resulting in a refusal and dismissal and the second order effects of that chain of events. But for the record, I am willing to suffer whatever consequences are necessary in order that the aggressive violation of individual bodily integrity and autonomy of peaceful people is unacceptable, up to and including the immediate destruction of the entire universe.
A universe where peaceful people minding their own business are not free to make their own choices is not worthy of existence. Cross that line and you've gone most of the way down the road of justifying the worst excesses of authoritarian abuse throughout history. There's a very good reason it's in the Nuremberg codes, it wasn't an accident to be revoked next time there's some "catastrophic emergency" going on. There are certain lines you do not cross and that is one of them.