I find vaccine mandates to be a solution to a problem that will never exist. in most countries, 80% was willing to get vaccinated before any kind of restrictions happened. This shows the trust and faith most people have in the benefit of the vaccine to their daily lives. If no one trusted the vaccine, then using political force would be the most destructive influence you can have on a democratic society where the majority is supposed to agree with the rules set forth.

Trying to force the last diverse 20% to take something they chose not to is also a clear violation of the Nuremberg code. There's two rules in the code which I believe is relevant for denying participation in vaccinations and their imposed restrictions.

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion"

"The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment."

The second point is mostly related to vaccinating younger people "for the benefit of the populace" If you claim something benefits the group, you still have the responsibility of proving that it benefits the group. which for very young people, natural infection might similarly benefit the group just as much as taking the vaccination.

Whether or not the Nuremberg code has any standing in todays courts is debatable but as this experiment has no defined solution it is clear that someone should be able to deny participation.