Well, the point is not for me the same as it is for you
We're talking about life and death consequences
From my perspective, I don't talk about life and death consequences. Making this an argument kills all other arguments. Is it actually an argument at all?
I asked you if you thought people should be forced to vaccinate. You answered "no". Are you sure you are voting for "no"? I find some doubt in your answer, especially when you imagine being a patient in a hospital. That leads room for interpreting that being a consumer, might fall in the same range (shopping in supermarket, for example).
You argue that companies that have a vaccination policy are not coercive because the person leaving the company can secure their livelihood on the basis of free choice of occupation, have I understood that correctly? From how I think, that doesn't make the company non coercive. Am I correct?
Are you sure that one can continue to choose freely? When would the time come when such is no longer possible and is that a scenario you completely rule out? Because your example, which you give immediately after the non-existing compulsion, also indicates that you don't seem to be completely free of doubt.