No, I have to disagree on this point. A 1% fatality rate upon contraction of covid 19 may seem small to you

I disagree. It does not seem small to me, it is small, taking into account that I spoke about less than one percent on average. Now, how can you influence a small number into a big one with mathematics and statistics? You can't.

I don't know where you live, but here in Germany the number of hospitals has been reduced: 6000 less than before, to be exact. The newly introduced Hospital Financing Act has also led to hospitals reducing their intensive care beds exactly to what is necessary to receive further financial support. In order not to fall into a gap between the existing beds and their capacities. According to the available data, they have never fully utilised these, but have always kept a reserve. Since this holding in reserve, however, costs money and space, the hospitals have reacted just as they did. They therefore always work at the limit, only the emotional suggestion of the media headlines turns it into a threat. However, as soon as the situation would become precarious, the hospitals would increase the beds and rooms again, that would be reasonable in any case. But then they would have to live with a deficit in their profits. But the shareholders don't like that so much when that happens.

If we all just went on with "life as normal", this would be an epic disaster. We cannot reasonably treat covid 19 as just an ordinary life risk.

Now you argue again as if there was, or could be a disaster. You've got to decide on this and I think you already did. An epic disaster, by its very nature, cannot be prevented by human influence. Otherwise it wouldn't be a disaster, catastrophe, you name it.

Of course I have emotions. But it is extremely rare that I let those emotions override my logical reasoning ability, and I do have disdain for people who do, especially when it comes to serious discussions that have life-threatening implications.

Contempt is a strong emotional response. How can you say you are using reasoning skills when you are expressing disdain at the same time? You are using an explicit moral here, but implicitly communicating unethically. Contempt doesn't get us anywhere, at most it contributes to degrading another. Personally, I am wary of claiming that my arguments come from pure logic and impartiality, I would take that as a politically correct statement that wants to disregard human emotions like anger and feeling provoked in favour of a desired but not very realistic idea of objectivity.

To set the record straight: I don't care about "political correctness" nor do I strive for it.

I don't buy that. Humans I know and spoke or speak to, feel tempted to say the right thing when asked critical questions. You would not say that "you don't care about humans deaths", would you? That sounds wrong and if you let another person get the impression that you don't care, you've got to be careful not to be outcasted or branded either "inhuman" (todays favorite term is "Nazi") or crazy ("conspiracy-lunatic"). If you let yourself being impressed by the guilt trips other people won't hesitate to give you, you'll most likely find yourself in the situation to adapt and use this as self defense, in order to remain a respectable member of your social group. This doesn't affect you in the slightest? I think no one could claim that he has not felt or thought about this.

The dilemma is only in your mind, by an overly restrictive definition of what it means to keep to yourself. It doesn't require you to become an absolute hermit.

HaHa :D, that's what the Sith Lord said to his apprentice Darth Vader when he claimed "There is no conflict!"

Now, the fact that you negate the dilemma does not make it not exist. Your formula is simple: follow all the rules and the dilemma is gone. But I am arguing from the position of not wanting to be tested or vaccinated, and thus it reappears on the scene. If I were not holding this view, this debate would be completely superfluous. But it is not just between you and me, it is everywhere. A common argument I hear is that these are irrelevant minorities, to which I counter that minorities are also protected by anti-discrimination. Moreover, the millions who have been demonstrating in the streets since then, how can you consider their numbers to be marginal, so you do? So if they are not protected by an anti-discrimination law, is this where you think their protection should end?

As it seems, you give your answer here:

I don't think your rights extend to risking the life of others by engaging in behaviors that are predictably dangerous to other people (and I suspect you ultimately believe the same thing and would vigorously protest if someone put your life at risk by their risky behavior).

But I don't think that neither you or other people whom happen to share my space are a threat to me. So I would not give them, or you, the guilt trip, for I think it's not only counterproductive to accept this as a matter of fact but also endangers my social life and isolates myself from my very basic needs. Can you accept that people fear different things and that their physical health for them is secondary, not primary?

No, it is not. Only if you assume some absolute separation of a kind that absolutely no one I'm aware of has suggested (until possibly you).

My government has proposed this and is loud and clear, now waiting to see how the people react. The proposals were precise, saying that people who do not get tested or vaccinated could be considered for exclusion. This implies that companies or other entities will not face any consequences from the legislature and the executive. Whether this was formulated in the same way in your country, I don't know, but I can imagine it. Maybe you haven't been watching the news? That was not a serious question. I assume that you follow the news.

Probably the most absurd thing about this is that the easy-to-manage isolation you mentioned will become a legal problem for people, so doctors, companies and other institutions would decide to tell people who insist on testing or vaccinating to go elsewhere. They would then rightly object that this was unacceptable, pointing out that, for example, places with a contrary policy could not prevent the unvaccinated/vaccinated and untested/tested from mixing elsewhere. And they would be right. Those who want to work to form parallel communities could be effectively prevented from doing so because they would be breaking existing law. Neither camp should therefore allow the other to pursue exclusively one-sided policies, because this would result in a two-class society. But strangely enough, this is happening on a frighteningly large scale.

What is the reality?
There are those who find the measures absolutely right
those who find them absolutely wrong
those who find them relatively right and relatively wrong

You can't solve this centrally for everyone. You can only decide on a case-by-case basis, and it looks like the best thing to do is to remain flexible. For this, I need the freedom of my own decision of conscience, not a pre-formulated catalogue that seeks to restrict me in this.