Well, the thing about reasonable precautions is that there's a fairly bright-line test: reasoned arguments behind those precautions. As for who should draw that line, I'd say that subject experts should have a very loud voice in the conversation. In this case, that would mean epidemiologists.
It's fine for vaccines to be a personal choice, but if epidemiologists think that an unvaccinated person is an undue risk to the general public, it's reasonable to limit that person's access to the public.
> Vaccines should be a personal choice because presumably they are effective enough that the argument for one's responsibility towards other people's health is greatly diminished to a point where we can decide what's a reasonable compromise.
Emphasis mine. Your presumption does not hold for all vaccines. Different vaccines and different strains of viruses have varying degrees of effectiveness. Epidemiologists take a data-driven approach to that decision where you're just making an assumption. Reasoned arguments must be backed by data, not just assumptions.
It's fine for vaccines to be a personal choice, but if epidemiologists think that an unvaccinated person is an undue risk to the general public, it's reasonable to limit that person's access to the public.
> Vaccines should be a personal choice because presumably they are effective enough that the argument for one's responsibility towards other people's health is greatly diminished to a point where we can decide what's a reasonable compromise.
Emphasis mine. Your presumption does not hold for all vaccines. Different vaccines and different strains of viruses have varying degrees of effectiveness. Epidemiologists take a data-driven approach to that decision where you're just making an assumption. Reasoned arguments must be backed by data, not just assumptions.