This is the suffering you are OK with because 'concerns':
I'm a vaxer But one community I hang with is strongly antivax. Many of them have been very harmed even if they didn't take the vaccines.
When something is that important to you (even for woowoo reasons or social media misinformation) then it is a fertile situation for mental health impacts.
Antivaxxers are a vulnerable population too (they have self selected into a circle by their beliefs and communities).
Disclosure: I've seen some good people severely harmed by overbearing government actions in New Zealand. I believe New Zealand did a good job of protecting everyone here from COVID, but that the collateral costs to everyone were very high (and extremely variable chronic costs to some).
Edit: apology that I've bucketed all vaccines together. E.g. Measles vaccine is quite different from covid vaccines.
Imagine if I said 'my religion doesn't allow running water, I should be allowed to defecate anywhere, and also science says toilets increase the risk of hemorrhoids, and you can't make me give my kids hemorrhoids'. You can't allow that, not because you don't agree with it, but because the way we live in groups needs artificial sanitation. Just like we need artificial stimulation of immune systems.
Each vaccination has costs and benefits. The science is amazing at reducing the physical risks.
I am just asking you to understand that some people are seriously psychologically harmed by requiring vaccinations (for themselves or for their children). It may be irrational, unscientific or selfish but I have seen how real the harm is for some people. That harm is a complex grey area. It should rarely trump the needs of children or society.
Society has a variety of ways to balance that harm against the expected benefits.
The second half of your comment is just a strawman story. And introducing religion as a topic is usually a poor idea.
The original anti-vax exemptions were given on religious grounds. All justifications after that have built on that initial allowance. It is very much not a straw man when it comes to vaccine allowances. It is the OG justification that opened the conversation.
After watching my santa cruz woo woo ex-wife's friends all literally talk themselves into believing in the damage of vaccines (while being fine taking MEGA/unhealthy doses of western science discovered vitamins), I consider vaccine hesitancy a form of Munchausen syndrome. One that should only be tolerated to a certain point, and this is well past that point.
But the medical community was acting with the best knowledge they had at the time as imperfect as it was. Tell me how did taking the vaccine harm any child? It wasn't painful. Immediate side effects were minimal to non-existent. Myocarditis and Carditis incidence was something like 65/million. Even then most of those recovered without any treatment. Median hospital stay for those that needed it was 2 nights and most recovered without permanent issues.
I think the final death toll from the vaccine was estimated at around 1/million. Meanwhile at the height of the delta strain the death toll for anyone infected was well over 1/100 ( more than 10% for the over 60s).
The fallout doesn't make rational sense.
You need to understand that herd immunization actually helps everyone, not just some small number of children who can't get vaccinated, because even the best vaccines don't offer 100% protection.
Your odds of getting sick are based on the odds that other people around you are contagious. That much should be extremely obvious, because every encounter with a contagion rolls the dice again.
What's less obvious is how much that matters because math is hard. Even if you have 95% immunity to some infectious disease, your probability of getting it at least once after 10 exposures is a whopping 40% (1 - 0.95^10). Everyone's protection, yours included, comes from reducing your chances of being unwittingly exposed because the people around you aren't getting sick, and that means vaccinating them too. When one person gets sick, everyone around them is put at increased risk. The way you fix that for everyone is by making it less likely that any member of the herd gets sick from any given exposure.
I don’t believe there are any people who believe that NOT beating their children is dangerous. If you put yourself in these parents’ shoes, they basically see this stuff as poison. What you’re asking them to do (in their mind) is inject their children with poison and for no other reason than because the government says so. It’s just a losing battle, you need to educate these people and show them that they are safe, address their concerns directly.
I would not inject my children with mercury if the government told me to. I would need to be convinced that mercury is safe and beneficial before I allowed my kid to be injected with it. I don’t feel like equating this to physical violence is helpful at all because in this case these parents believe they are preventing harm to their children.