As it seems this coronavirus thing is not ending, several states in the world are dedicated to (what would be) "taking measures." In Australia, apart from making vaccination mandatory in some professions, the unvaccinated will not be able to enter restaurants. In Austria, the unvaccinated will be confined, except to go to work or to shop. In Singapore, the unvaccinated will have to pay medical expenses.
Of all these measures ---surely there will be others--- the one that seems most logical and proportionate to me is to restrict some activities for the unvaccinated, as they do in Australia. Not being able to go to a restaurant, bar, or nightclub if you haven't been vaccinated seems logical to me, because in this way you don't endanger this economic activity. The Austrian one seems difficult to comply with, although they have already announced that there will be police controls. Singapore's, however, seems like a bad idea to me. If unvaccinated people admitted to the hospital must pay their expenses, should smokers with lung diseases also pay their expenses? Drinkers with liver or pancreas diseases? And the unvaccinated for other diseases, if they catch them? Should we, in short, pay our medical expenses if we haven't been vaccinated against the flu?
I hear many vaccinated people around me who think this measure in Singapore is fine (they said on the radio, a few days ago, that the only two serious patients admitted to the ICU of a Barcelona hospital were not vaccinated). What I honestly don't understand is that if in a country like Singapore they can take this measure (making the unvaccinated pay medical expenses) when it comes to not being ethical, why don't they force the entire population to get vaccinated?