IMO we shouldn't fall in the trap of having to prove Graphene Oxide etc. There is more than enough data to show that vaccines have a horrible side effect profile, comparable to the disease in many cases. So a person should have the choice which set of side effects they would like to suffer. Their response is likely to be one of:
Individual level arguments:
The vaccine (1) reduces possibility of death/suffering (2) reduce viral load you spread to others (3) ends the pandemic.
Systemic level arguments:
(4) Hospitals will fill up and even accident victims won't get care. (5) The normie is a leftist telling you to "deal with it" or "f***-ing die".
For (1) you say I'm ok dying and suffering on my own terms. Not for you to decide for me. If not, why don't we ban adventure sports too?
For (2) you say if someone is worried about reducing the viral load they catch, they should be using an N-95 mask and faceshield, use hand sanitizer, follow decontamination procedures after returning from outside and stay under voluntary lockdown. In other words, they should be sacrificing their own liberties for their own security. They pay for their own security rather than you pay for theirs.
For (3) say the vaccine cannot stop infection, hence cannot stop the pandemic.
For (4) and (5) you say if an individual must take a risk for the sake of society, then the society has a reciprocal obligation to take care of the consequences the individual may face. However, this is no such recourse for COVID-19 vaccinations. In fact, the person is ostracized for speaking about the adverse reactions. If society is so hostile to the individual, then it is rational for the individual to be hostile to society as well to negotiate a better deal for himself. If they say COVID-19 is a risk too, you can say it is a risk I'm taking for myself (one party). Whereas the vaccine is a risk I'm taking for society (two parties). Hence, reciprocity becomes an issue.
In addition, people who smoke, eat unhealthy, drink too much, do drugs etc. are also filling up hospitals for an avoidable condition. Should we ban these things too? Should we mandate physical exercise like we mandate getting medical treatments (i.e. vaccines)? How about an obesity tax? Why single out unvaccinated people?
Profit.
EDIT: Added another argument I had overlooked.
And the main point is not even vaccines either. The vaccine thing does NOT get through me because the only visible purpose of that was to ensure it becomes a goalpost and this can be escalated to a "Final Solution" "1 month" lockdown that leads to a decade with 400M dead.
As for the Normie mindset, let me enlighten you.
Government mandates it...
Yes deal with it.
Because it turns it into flu instead of a "Deadly Virus".
So yes, no way getting around it. Let all of us experience the Final Solution "One Month" (decade) long lockdowns themselves and see 400M of them die and the rest with PTSD and trying to indict the UN in 2031 but failing.
Good points. If it gets to that level of closed mindedness from the normie, I edited my post to add one other argument:
"If society is so hostile to the individual, then it is rational for the individual to be hostile to society as well to negotiate a better deal for himself."
This is in agreement with your solution of non-compliance, but re-framed for a normie mind.
Many are too far gone to reason with. But we should try to get the fence sitters to our side using arguments that rely on stuff they already believe in. Later we show them the mother lode.
You are going to make them angry. You want to convince them, not making them mad.
The only solution is to let them see it for themselves. Decade long lockdowns until 400M die by 2030. Most people in America or the UK DO NOT know who Pol Pot is, and just because you know A is a setup to Genocide doesn't mean you won't get surprised by B which is also a setup for Genocide, aside that you are not given any explicit cues about extermination.