It is well known that there are three things: punishment, consequences, and prevention. What is punishment? Someone who did not get vaccinated will pay double the television license fee and will not be able to rezone land for the next five years. What are consequences? Someone who did not get vaccinated will pay full price at the hospital if he gets sick with coronavirus. What is prevention? Someone who did not get vaccinated will not be able to enter places with crowds.
Punishment and consequences apparently do indeed depend on choice, and someone who, for example, was medically unable to get vaccinated has no reason to be punished or made to bear consequences. But prevention, simply speaking, is not connected to choice at all. It seems that here you are dealing only with prevention, and nevertheless you tie it to choice. Why isn’t that riding two horses at once?

(I’ll note in passing that I myself never distinguish at all between punishment and consequences. Punishment and consequences are, all in all, nothing more than incentives to get people to do things, and that’s all.)

You’re presenting it too sharply. There is room to take into account someone who was compelled and did not get vaccinated even in the context of prevention.

And what about consequences (in case of illness — imposing the cost of treatment, canceling sick pay and unemployment benefits, lower priority, etc.) and punishment (going out despite not being vaccinated — a fine, arrest, revocation of a license, prohibition on keeping pets, etc.) for someone who voluntarily chose not to get vaccinated?

And does it depend on the motive that he claims is driving him — indifference, fear of side effects or unknown outcomes, not believing in vaccines, not wanting a needle and local pain in the vaccination area for two days, etc.

In my opinion there is no room for punishment at all. A person is allowed to act according to his understanding so long as he does not harm others. Imposing payment for the treatment is in principle possible.

This may be a foolish request, but could you please briefly formulate the justification for the distinction between bearing the consequences of a personal decision and punishment?

It seems self-evident to me. Punishment is given to someone who acted improperly (in my view, this should be improper even by his own lights). If someone acted according to the best of his understanding, there is no place to punish him. But of course he must bear the consequences of his actions and decisions. Am I supposed to bear the consequences instead (to get infected)?
Of course, I am assuming that punishment is a sanction/retribution and not merely for prevention or deterrence. Prevention or deterrence can also be applied to someone who is not guilty or who acted properly by his own lights (for example, someone who breaks the law because he disagrees with it).

With God's help, 3 Adar 5781

Regarding the position of the eminent Rabbi Ratzon Arousi, see the article: 'Restrict movement for those who refuse to be vaccinated' (on the Arutz 7 website).

With blessings, Menashe Fishel Halevi Zuchmir

Thanks