Normally I lean that way, too, but I keep coming back to the question of equivalent scenarios. Let's say someone is seen at the hospital for cellulitis and treated a few days, coughs up blood, and based on history and exam his physician gets testing showing he has...tuberculosis. Which is contagious, dangerous and sometimes resistant to treatment. The physician figures he'll be in the hospital awhile until they get this eliminated, in a special room where air pressure is managed so what's in the room doesn't leak out and endanger others.
What if the guy says 'Nope. My cellulitis is all cleared up, and as for T.B., yeah, I listened to all you told me about it, but I'm not staying here, I've had enough of your pills, and I'm gonna go out and live my life. I demand to leave A.M.A. and don't bother me with follow up plans, enough is enough.'
At what point does the carrier of a potentially dangerous infectious disease lose the right to wander around in public putting other people at risk?
Given how far this virus has penetrated into the population, it seems likely many (and maybe most) people will eventually get vaccinated or get the virus. Those who get the virus then pose an infection hazard to others. Others aren't warned, don't get free choice in the matter, and our infected anti-vaxxer is in effect forcing his choice to play it risky on them.
