By your own line of reasoning, you are yourself a danger to those who are unvaccinated due to certain diet choices you could possibly be making. For example, why should someone have the right to be allowed to eat certain foods and sugars which suppresses the immune system. These choices make them more susceptible to contagious diseases which make you more of a threat to people who cannot be vaccinated.
To be fair to you, I think this is a valid point to at least raise. However, I think it ultimately is not practical. And here is why:
When it comes to
vaccinations as a means to suppress disease, we
know that they provide high degrees of protection with very little risk. In short, we know how to implement a vaccination program and make it work. We know that, say, 2 weeks after being vaccinated, the risk of a person getting the disease is, say, 1 in 10,000.
When it comes to
diet, however, there is much more uncertainty and other problems:
1. We simply do not know if it is even possible to achieve the same
effectiveness as a vaccination intervention;
2. We do not know what
diet choices to propose to achieve efficacy;
3. It is
much harder for someone to comply with a diet regime and than to get a vaccine. I suspect you will say that people just need to be responsible for themselves. I think that is a noble sentiment, but deeply unrealistic. It is much, much easier to get people to get vaccinated than to changes their diet.
In any event, I can almost guarantee you that item 1 torpedoes the proposal that we use diet - I would be
shocked if a duly qualified expert would agree that diet can achieve the same level of effectiveness as vaccination.