The probabilities are very different, and that compounds when infections are exponential.
Your argument could equally apply to DUIs:"Driving sober doesn't mean you won't be involved in an accident" - sure, but the likelihood is lowered by a measurable amount.
> The probabilities are very different, and that compounds when infections are exponential.
So? What are the numbers? You seem to have it all figured out, so all I'm asking is how the situations are different, and how exactly you arrived at the conclusion that one merited forced medical procedures and the other did not, based on those numbers.
Handwaving about more or different doesn't really cut it because I want clear, unambiguous hard criteria and step by step reasoning for why one particular set of numbers justifies this serious step and another does not.
The probability being very different argument above is based in massaged data; data fit to a narrative.
The narrative wants you to trust it and set aside such petty questioning! "The science" will prevail! The elites no better! How dare you ask for specifics, a practical dataset and explanations. You might be labeled a anti-vaxxer over such things! /sarcasm
> Being vaccinated doesn't mean you are not contagious.
Being vaccinated reduces contagion (with known variants other than Delta, it reduces probability of contagious infection, intensity (viral load) of contagious infection, and duration of contagious infection; with Delta it does the first and third.
Being vaccinated doesn't mean you are not contagious.