Consider a hypothetical scenario: there is a fire in the woods and the government says "do not go into the woods". People choose to go to the woods and return as burnt victims. Hospitals should help these individuals, but if they fill up 100% of the hospital beds and we need to turn people who got hurt due to accidents who then die, the fault is on those who chose to go into the dangerous woods.

It may be the case that implementing a policy of vacating beds of burn victims is too challenging, but that doesn't undermine the "should" in the "we should vacate beds of voluntarily hurt when accidentally hurt need the beds".

The problem is that it's not as simple as that, everyone knows fire will hurt you. Our country is polarized and the truth is under attack. A large part of the population doesn't trust vaccines, they are not all idiots. They are victims of circumstance and don't know any better. I don't think it makes sense to equate them to suicidal people that are wandering around in forest fires.

Even simpler: By refusing treatment based on choices stemming from mistrust of the system you are validating that mistrust.

Counterpoint: it's not the uneducated that don't vaccinate, it's the cynical - and the "educated" are often ignorant of all the ways it's reasonable to be cynical because they haven't been screwed over as much.

At the end of the day, understanding the benefit of a vaccine requires trusting information, and I think that information, and trust, has been compromised. You could equally hate on anyone deciding that smoking was bad for you, not long ago, because of how thoroughly compromised the "science" around it was.