Unfortunately, no. We live in a society where sometimes we have to take collective action to prevent collective harm. Taking personally inconvenient measures to help fight an epidemic is a prime example.
Yes there are collective actions we take, and the first two weeks of covid response might’ve been justified. But nothing since then. Maybe having to get tested to get on a plane.
Natural immunity does lower your chances, but you’re saying nope for the collective good (the good you’ve decided on) you must do xyz.
Bull crap. The emperor has no clothes.
For example, people might get struck by lightning walking by your house, so we must force you to install a lightening rod on your house to protect the collective.
Where does it stop, and how do you make that determination?
There isn't an easy or obvious answer to where it stops and how to determine that, but that goes both ways. We can't just have zero laws for fear that the laws might overextend themselves.
Unfortunately, we have to deal with nuance either way.
Two important considerations:
1. The vaccine is extraordinarily effective at mitigating risk of hospitalization and death.
2. No current COVID vaccines are sterilizing. Vaccination confers only marginal reduction in ability to carry and transmit the virus (and even this, mainly due to duration, not due to viral load).
Taken together, the "get vaccinated to protect me" canard is insane. I don't care if other people are vaccinated or not, because I am. Any other position is political, not scientific.
There is a minor argument to be had over the (tiny) immunocompromised population, but it's important to bear in mind that this population already does conduct their lives with isolation, antiviral, antibacterial, and other safety protocols regardless of COVID. They did it before the pandemic, and they will after. Nothing changes for them regardless of vaccine uptake rates.