> They are people who are in constant contact with very vulnerable group. Personal liberty ends where other person's liberty begins.

The problem with that argument is that it's disingenuous.

Sure, unvaccinated workers could spread the virus, but so can vaccinated workers. "It's less likely!" How much so? Where do we draw the line? Also, unvaccinated workers are more likely to know they are sick and stay home, which could very well make it less likely that they spread the virus. There are too many variables.

Also, there are many cases where the liberty of others is only taken into account if it is proven that someone's actions affected others. If an action that someone takes does not affect others in an appreciable way, we tend to ignore it. Say, for example, if someone buys almost all of an item from a store, preventing others from doing so. Or banks lending out more money than they have. Or a parent getting distracted by kids while driving.

In all of those cases, we ignore the potential that doing those things may infringe on others' rights, such as the parent causing an accident or the bank being unable to cover all of the withdrawals they have one day because inflation is rising, which causes a run on the bank.

So why don't we do that here? Why is it so important to prevent something that might happen rather than being okay with fixing what does happen?

Say that some people at a hospital get sick of COVID. The hospital has both vaccinated and unvaccinated workers. The hospital decides that it's going to hold the unvaccinated workers responsible for it. The workers complain and ask for proof they were responsible. So the hospital tests everyone, and the only people with COVID at the time were vaccinated. What does the hospital do then?

tl;dr: Personal liberty does end where another's begins, but what people forget is that the victim needs to prove that their rights were infringed before they get relief.