True rights never clash. People need to be forced to be vaccinated because nobody has a right to spread a deadly disease, so, even if they think they won’t, vaccines will help preventing people from killing others by not being vaccinated.
Including the vaccinated, who can still spread it, so I guess we must lock them up since they are already vaccinated, and we can't stop them from spreading the virus otherwise.
Saying that people don't have a right to spread the virus is disingenuous. The reality is that people don't have a right to be free from sickness or death. You can only make personal decisions about risk you are willing to take. To force other people to do things to make you safe is not a right.
> Including the vaccinated, who can still spread it
True, but when vaxxeds spread to other people who are vaccinated, nobody dies. It’s the unvaccinated who endanger themselves (their problem) and others (society’s problem) with their unwillingness to help. We should isolate the unvaccinated for their own protection.
> Saying that people don't have a right to spread the virus is disingenuous.
Try to deliberately infect someone with a disease such as AIDS, HPV, or smallpox and let me know what the law says about that.
> You can only make personal decisions about risk you are willing to take.
You can’t, for instance, drink and drive. It’s not your personal decision the moment your decision endangers others.
> To force other people to do things to make you safe is not a right.
Someone who insists in DUI and kills people regularly will end up being forced to live in a prison.
Read it, and I think you missed the irony that the right of "physical integrity" could also be, and is more likely to be, the right to not have the government control your body, such as forcing people to take a vaccination. If you believe that the right to physical integrity in the German constitution is to make it your right to not get sick, how much more is it the right of others to not have you make medical decisions for them?
Wikipedia says there are cases pending in German supreme court regarding a recent measles vaccination mandate; the court has so far refused to issue a preliminary injunction against the mandate and left the question open for decision in the main trial (see paragraph 18).
From a philosophical perspective, you're not wrong, but real life constrains us greatly.
Germany could theoretically disallow unvaccinated people access to their ICUs without trampling any rights. It would get messy.
Germans aren't fond of messy solutions. They are a very practical people, and they've decided to take a more practical approach (vaccine mandates) that might respect individual rights less, but also results in much less death for those very individuals and the rest of society.
You not wrong either, but I seem to remember that the Germans had a mighty neat, i.e., non-messy "solution" (some would say a "final" one) for a "problem" they thought they had.
Throughout history, making people second-class citizens has never resulted in anything good. If you can name one instance in history where making people second-class citizens was a net benefit, I will eat my words.
I'll suppress the obvious Godwin's law call-out to just state that "unvaccinated" is not a protected class, and we probably both agree that carrots tend to work better than sticks.
Oh, it's not a orotected class?! That's fine, then! If we take nonrepentant apostates off the list of protected classes, do we get to lock them up, too? :)
> They're mandating vaccines so that they can continue to provide all their citizens with this human right.
This is exactly why those people are wrong. True rights never clash.