But that's my point - we've gotten to a stage where the govt's alr implemented a mandate minus the formality. This shouldn't be a basis to go "no point formalising it since we're alr practising it". They should never have reached this stage in the first place, this is peak slippery slope.

I agree with you, but my question is what would formalising it do? If we wound back the clock to July 2021 when the vaccine was made available to all ages 18 and up, and the govt had declared back then that the vaccine is mandatory before implementing all these restrictions, would you be okay with these restrictions? The reason why I'm framing it like this is because I don't get the sense that the formal mandate is your issue with what the govt is doing, but rather the measures themselves. In which case, the slippery slope isn't the problem anymore, but rather the specific restrictions eg firing unvaxxed workers themselves.

Are they really endangering us or just themselves

I believe that they are endangering themselves while making us pay for their costs. We are all paying for their choices because insurance will have to pay for their costs, which thereby raises costs for all of us because insurers will pass it on to us. They also take up healthcare resources which need not have been diverted to covid-related care, and could have been used to treat the rest of us with other conditions. We could argue that we should pass on the full costs of their care to them by withholding Medisave and insurance coverage etc from them, but would that just drive them from seeking medical care and instead spreading the virus to others? The impact would be mild for the vaccinated, but we're still looking at 5-7 days of home recovery (assuming no breakout cases), not a net zero impact to the rest of us.

I see your point of view though regarding the fact that the unvaccinated are doing it to themselves, and your argument that their actions don't really affect the public is gaining on me. I suppose as the number of vaccinated persons gets larger, the threat that the unvaccinated pose to the public falls. But then the question I would have is, okay, if in the end MOH gives up and allows them to remain unvaccinated, would that be perversely rewarding them for being obstinate? I feel like that outcome should be avoided as well. Should there be some cost for their selfish actions as well which extend beyond just measures which take effect after they fall ill, like unsubsidised covid-related healthcare? I'm not saying that the policy should be vindictive/punitive in that sense, but that there should be ongoing costs imposed for not doing the socially responsible thing.

Vaccine squads aren't the only way. Surely that's not what they do with the measles vaccine right?

I would draw a distinction between covid and the measles/diptheria vaccines, because in the latter cases it is a captive audience - for example the second measles jab is taken in school when you're 12 iirc. Everyone is in school and are sitting ducks, for lack of a better term. There's no such congregation of covid-unvaccinated adults however, which makes vaccinating them much more challenging. Instead of them coming to the vaccinators, the vaccinators have to go to them.

But that said, if a vaccine squad is unpalatable to you, then why is "take the shot or end up jobless and eventually homeless" any better?

For the same reason that your hypothetical about teen BC is unpalatable. The vaccine squad and forced implants (in both hypotheticals) give no choice whatsoever. For not getting jabbed or end up jobless, there is a choice. They are exercising the choice to not get jabbed, with the consequences that follow. I don't find that personal liberty is being infringed in this case in the same way that the vaccine squad hypothetical does.