Most of the anti-mandate people (I'm not one, to be clear) would be quite happy with a world where the interventions around COVID were awareness campaigns. And just as some people insist on not wearing condoms despite the risks, the same will be true of mask wearing and vaccines.

Would they be happy with "Knowingly infecting someone or non disclosure of positive infection status during possible transmission activities is a jailable offense" for COVID?

Ultimately these interventions, mandates and other public health measures, which wind up as a mix of education, awareness and mandates or laws become a balancing act between personal inconvenience and public good; so the work done for HIV is different from the intervention for covid-19 for that and other reasons.

The standard for criminal HIV transmission (in California, at least; it varies by state) is not "accidentally infecting someone while not knowing your status." It's not even "infecting someone without disclosing that you're HIV-positive while knowing you're HIV-positive." It's "intentionally infecting someone with HIV." And, explicitly, your knowledge of your positive status is not sufficient to establish intent.

smoking, and indoor second hand smoking laws ... we know the principles here

>But we do strongly encourage condom usage and tests. There are education resources and awareness campaigns.

Nobody is saying we shouldn't strongly encourage vaccines. But there is a difference between education/awareness campaigns and a mandates.

The same people trying to prevent unvaccinated people from being a part of society would have flipped out if you had to show PrEP status at gay bars in 2019.

>Knowingly infecting someone or non disclosure of positive infection status during possible transmission activities is a jailable offense.

But you aren't charged just because you don't wear a condom or take PrEP while you don't know you have HIV.