I think it was nightowl who expressed grave misgivings about this "no jab, no job" proposal. I agree with her that it could be a very slippery slope to insist that some jobs must include proof of vaccine. And there seems to be a likelihood that a person would have to continue having boosters and possibly different vaccines to counter different strains of the virus.
It is this sort of state control that allows governments to argue certain laws forcing people to undergo medical procedures are "for the good of the nation". In China, when it was thought the population was growing too fast to be realistically sustainable, the government imposed a one child policy. There were cases of women being forced to have abortions and of families being impoverished by high fines. Do we really want to live in a country where a person can be denied access to jobs or amenities or is subjected to hatred and derision from the majority?
I think people should have the right to refuse medical interventions. Every winter, there is grave concern that there will be an unusually contagious and deadly flu outbreak - and every year many lives are lost through flu. Should we then apply the "no jab, no job" in relation to flu also?
I would never try to persuade anyone to have or not have the vaccine. I believe it is important that people have the right of control over their own bodies. To impose these sorts of restrictions to jobs is, in effect, forcing many people to be vaccinated. And where will it end - will there be "mission creep", whereby, as has been suggested recently, those without proof of vaccination will be denied entry to shops, restaurants, cinemas, etc etc?