Two things can be true at the same time:
1. There shouldn't be an exception to the rule for a high-profile person
2. The rules are draconian
1. There shouldn't be an exception to the rule for a high-profile person
2. The rules are draconian
There is nothing draconian about a rule requiring vaccination for a disease responsible for a global pandemic with the 5th highest death toll in human history. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics#By_death_tol...
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...
[1] https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/australian-open/2022/bernar...
There are other things that lower that risk significantly, such as having recovered from covid previously, having no co-morbidities, healthy diet, being young, having a sufficient vitamin D level and many more. Why does everyone need to get the same medical treatment? Not all people are the same. The risk to get myocarditis from the mRNA vaccine is higher than getting it from covid for males under 40. This is a large share of a population.
Citation required. That's been debunked IIRC. And even if it were true, myocarditis isn't the only thing a male under 40 can get as a negative effect from Covid.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29697780
I am not aware of any debunking yet.
> myocarditis isn't the only thing a male under 40 can get as a negative effect from Covid.
This is true, and the vaccine has some potential to mitigate that, but there are other factors that need to be considered too, such as trying to keep laws undraconian.
Immunity from one does not help with others.
People have been getting covid multiple times. (eg. Glenn Beck).