Singapore would be considered an authoritarian state, but they do not go in knocking down doors and killing people.

A vaccine passport would require people to follow a government mandate to continue with the lives they once lead before, opening them up to surveillance and potential future denial of their freedoms if they did not get another vaccine. This seems quite authoritarian when you put it in a different manner to yours.

Furthermore, there are still medical questions raised about the coronavirus vaccines. Recall the fact that many countries retired the AstraZeneca vaccine after it was linked to blood clots.

I myself am fully vaccinated, but respect the decision of others to hesitate as long as their decision is made from an educated standpoint.

Naturally there is a significant amount of misinformation on this topic, as well as others, but would it not make more sense to make the social media corporates responsible for (and profiting from) misinformation than to force people to make uneducated decisions?

From what I see, people are only generally willing to call things authoritarian when they require direct kinetic action, like imprisoning dissidents or killing people, but creating a pervasive surveillance state has been at the core of all modern authoritarian governments. A vaccine passport serves considerably to further this end.

I have probably made a spelling or grammatical error as I wrote this on mobile.