Duty is not a bad word.
Not even in a free, democratic state.
The basic rights are no license for ruthlessness, they find their barriers in the basic rights of fellow human beings and other values of constitutional rank.
No state can be made without following the rules decided on in a constitutional and democratic manner, without obligations;
even if one cannot force every duty.
Compulsory vaccination against Corona was unnecessarily declared a taboo by the federal government at an early stage. Now things are crumbling in German states too, after Austria turned around under pressure from its federal states. It is of secondary importance whether the duty is expressly imposed on everyone or whether it is designed in such a way through conditions in public life. The goal is decisive. If action is to be taken, previous neglect is of no importance in the first place. And if doing nothing or sticking to unsuitable measures leads to the death of thousands of other people, who may possibly be cared for on the street, and if closing the vaccination gap is the appropriate means - then there is no avoiding an obligation.
It is largely the same as such an obligation if one can no longer participate in public life without proof of vaccination.
Parliaments and governments, for their part, must give plausible reasons for this step.
Just because a minority, which is described as too harmless by “opponents of vaccination”, does not seem to be accessible to any objective argument, the rule of law must not give up on convincing.
But he also has to enforce rules for the good of everyone.
His record in this area so far is shockingly meager.
Anyone who lets everything run for a long time, at best has lockdown fantasies, cannot even control 2 G or 3 G and who first thinks of footballers when they are required to be vaccinated should in any case not inflate their cheeks too far.
The state also has a duty.