Admittedly, it's not a great example, but maybe it can facilitate understanding a bit?

Why do we take away the right to drive a car (free movement) from those who are intoxicated? All that banning of drunk driving does is it slightly decreases a nonzero probability of risk. The risk to be hurt by an intoxicated driver is very low, and the risk to die is even lower. If people are really concerned about street safety, and traffic is inherently dangerous as it is, they should just stay at home.

> I simply don't understand why one person needs to undergo a medical procedure to enable someone else to experience the safe conditions they want.

Me neither, I think it's completely unreasonable.

I think it’s completely unreasonable that people complain about an explosives factory next to a school. The risk of explosion is very low and the economic impact on the company would be devastating. Why do people think their right to be a little more safer trumps the right to manufacture high explosives?

I don't see how that's an accurate comparison at all. It doesn't require people to undergo medical procedures, doesn't violate their right to their own bodies or their basic freedom

It’s about the right to expose others to a risk without their consent.

You don’t have the right to expose others to a deadly disease. If you undergo the “medical procedure” (an injection, not surgery, brain transplant or anything complicated, expensive or risky) you reduce risks for you and others, as well as you avoid the risk of using my taxes to pay for additional medical care you wouldn’t need if you just had the very minor inconvenience of two injections.

Put another way, you have so little faith in the efficacy of the vaccine's ability to protect you from the effects of covid that you want others to take that same vaccine just so that you can feel a little better about your odds. And the other side is the selfish one. That sum it up?

Yeah but I'm not responsible for that deadly disease, and I don't control it. It's everywhere all the time. And it's really unclear if me getting vaccinated actually helps anything. It's a completely different thing if you are in 100% control of where a factory should be placed. The equivalent would be to argue that the factory should be banned because someone somewhere are in fact misusing these explosives for evil purposes, and therefor it should be closed forever.

With that reasoning, you are always exposing others to some indirect risk by any activity you do, everything must be banned. There's a certain limit to what is considered within your direct control and can be considered your personal responsibility.

You are expected to allow yourself to be subjected to whatever injections and suffer whatever loss of human dignity for the purpose of some vague "risk-reduction" that ultimately will contribute little towards the actual goal which is never clearly defined and is subject to eternal revision (only in good faith though :)). You are expected to do this to your children as well.

The clearly defined goal is to reduce the number of deaths and avoid exhausting hospital capacity.

Vaccines are helping with that.

>> But requiring others to get a vaccine to attain some arbitrary risk ratio just doesn't make sense.

Uhm, we do this all the time: licensing, seat belts, etc. Welcome to modern society.

At least with seatbelts it is the idiot who gets hurt. In the case of vaccines, it’s the others, mostly those who, for valid medical reasons, can’t be vaccinated.

Everything in life has a non-zero probability of killing you.

We weigh up the probabilities.

Which is why it is a good idea to get vaccinated.