> Not sure how we fell into this erroneous belief that we need tell others that they shouldn't or should be vaccinated.

If you'd like the answer, the belief originally stems from watching hundreds of millions of people die of smallpox

https://historyofvaccines.org/blog/timeline-of-vaccination-m...

The difference is that the smallpox vaccine is close to providing sterilizing immunity, unlike the Covid 'vaccines'. In fact there is a lot of data to suggest now that the number of vaccine doses a person has is correlated to an increased risk of catching covid (and therefore spreading it).

Statistics agencies have to massage the raw data very significantly in their models to make it look like vaccinated individuals catch covid less often than unvaccinated people.

If anything, vaccine is a misnomer for the Covid shots. Maybe prophylactic is more accurate?

Vaccines can be prophylactic, or therapeutic (to fight a disease that has already occurred, which also includes some cancer treatments). Only some vaccines offer full sterilising immunity.

Thank you for sharing.

I get your premise and it's true for a lot of stuff, but the equivalent is saying that following the rules of the road white driving is a personal choice. When choices start effecting those around you it's a different animal.

No, I don't believe it is. Personal health choices and driving laws are two very different things.

When one drives recklessly, we know the result, bodily harm to themselves and or others. When one takes a new vaccine with limited testing and emergency approval, we don't know the result(s), yet.

By that logic, every set of choices one could have that affects others should be regulated or overseen?

Moreover, that comparison is predicated on the belief that vaccines prevent transmission. There has been no sufficient data (to my knowledge) that backs up the claim of them doing so.

The problem is that it wasn't a personal choice for a lot of people who were effectively coerced.

Agreed.