Personally I think the right of the individual not to have medical procedures done against one's will, even if misinformed or unrealistic, exceeds the right of others to demand that everyone have a reduced level of contagiousness. Maybe that's unpopular, but to me there's a very fundamental idea at stake here: one's bodily integrity is not something governments should be able to forcibly override.
I don't think that extends to temporary stuff like masking - no fundamental right is being affected there, although if they started saying "you may not leave your home without being masked up" I might start to think differently. But to require masks inside buildings is, I think, the prerogative of the owner of whatever business etc is in that building.
But even though I am generally in favour of vaccination and not at all sympathetic to the "vaccines cause autism" set (and have argued at length in favour of vaccines against true anti-vaxxers on other forums) I think the idea that the state should be able to compel you to imprint your immune system with a particular image is really disturbing, actually. Particularly in the context of this vaccine, for which we have no long term data.
I would also caution that the vaccine efficacy reports are all using relative vs absolute risk numbers, which is fine if you understand what that means, but it makes it sound a lot better than it is.
When they say it's 97% effective at stopping symptomatic cases, that's true, but it doesn't mean that your personal risk level changes by a huge amount. In fact, the absolute risk reduction is around 0.8%, i.e. you previously had, say, a 15% chance of getting a symptomatic case, and now you have a 14.2% of getting a symptomatic case.
Granted your absolute risk numbers depend on a bunch of factors, so they could change and the virus could become more widespread and your absolute risk could increase. I'm not arguing that nobody should get vaccinated, but just that there's a ton of grey area here and IMO the information that shows how murky a lot of these decisions really are, is not being made widely available.
Here's a good graphic I pulled from PubMed that explains the concept of absolute vs relative risk. It was included on a paper discussing this exact topic, which is where I got the 0.8% figure from.
Again this is not to suggest that the vaccines don't work or anything, but just to give a frame of reference about exactly what people are insisting should happen here.
Personally, I prize individual freedom very highly so that's my bias. Collective rights are very low on my list of priorities and I understand that not everyone agrees, but that's my personal ethic and I prefer the costs associated with a bias towards individual liberty to the costs associated with collective control.
View attachment 65223
