>>Currently I am quite furious that my fit and health conscious sons (and all the children in the same situation) are being forced into a choice between unemployment / exclusion in society or taking a forced medical treatment on the false claim that it will protect others (since it does not prevent infection nor onward transmission - CDC) and for a disease that has no real risk to them whilst the medical treatment itself is very clearly not risk-free (VAERS database) and has unknown and unknowable potential long-term adverse effects.

So you have taken a scientific approach and formed a conclusion supported by latest published data re men aged less than 40y: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0.pdf . In fairness, myocarditis is only one element but it's an important one, as a very rare disease in young people until now. It's also possible that these early data may be overturned; but planning is about preparing for the worst not hoping for the best, which is another variant of your precautionary principle. ;-)

Re Gibraltar: if vaccination only reduces transmission briefly, then transmission can be expected to standardize quickly. There's some evidence that jabs still do reduce severity, but the authors of Thomas Bellin's excellent antibody citation suggest that protection is already limited with omicron and if the next 2 mutations remain virulent, it's likely that current induced antibodies will offer zero protection. It's also worth observing that delta and omicron appear to be less virulent which itself could be enough to explain reduced hospitalization or mortality currently attributed to vaccination, as is seen with omicron in SA with low vax rates. Many still say that omicron may be the vaccine that ends this pandemic, in which case it's a shame SA cannot claim some sort of royalty for the best vaccine yet. ;-)