I think that it's pretty clear that in any reasonable society the removal of the vote from a legal citizen is not a viable action, so if the hyperbole in my post wasn't apparent I apologise. I'll be more clear next time.
That said, the refusal to be vaccinated against a disease that so far has killed over a million people globally isn't really something that can be allowed to simply ride as a matter of personal choice. We exact all sorts of requirements upon people as conditions of participating in society; if you actively choose to be a willing potential carrier of a deadly virus, then you can't squeal about muh rights when society chooses to exclude you. You have the right to catch covid if you wish, but you don't have the right to spread it to others when the means to prevent that happening are being made available to you.
I'm curious - are you arguing this as a point of principle, or are you personally opposed to taking this vaccine?
Point of principle. I have a lot of issues with how the virus and issues surrounding it have been treated by people at large.
I think the problem with the framing around this whole argument is that no one actively chooses to be the carrier of a virus. Vaccines aren't 100% efficacious, similar at a different scale to NPIs; you can "do everything right" and still catch a disease/become a carrier. The chances are ostensibly reduced, but they still exist, especially at something like a 90% rate of efficacy.
So then it becomes a line-drawing problem. The vaccine is a good way to reduce the chances of spreading the virus to others, but so is the government walling everyone into their homes for the next year. All sorts of things can be mandated that would reduce the general public's chances of getting and spreading the virus. It should not be opposed that people get the vaccine; it should be opposed that governments mandate that they do, and I would consider not allowing people to do day-to-day things (even without the voting aspect) to effectively mandate it.
I also worry about a slippery slope, of sorts. In the US, Jacobson v. Mass in 1905 upheld a compulsory vaccination scheme - assuming the person would not be put at risk by taking it. 22 years later, in Buck v. Bell, this was cited as principle to justify a compulsory sterilization scheme: “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” While that was 100 years ago, I worry that something similarly inhumane could happen today with a similar justification.
