Not political violence, per the point being made upthread. Seems unproductive to litigate beyond that distinction.

Unproductive though it may be, consider the (extreme) hypothetical of a government arresting someone and forcing a needle into their arm, administering a biological agent against the recipient's will. I believe that would satisfy a literal (if unconventional) definition of "political violence".

So, what's left to litigate is whether the threat/coercion of "you will lose your job unless you let us do this to you" makes the definition no longer apply.

I would say that (hypothetical) refugees fleeing a government-orchestrated pogrom are still victims of "political violence" even though they had the "choice" of leaving the country (and their job); but perhaps some would argue they are merely choosing to avoid a mandate passed by their democratic government.

A government-orchestrated pogrom would, obviously, be political violence. There is no government-orchestrated pogrom at issue in this story.

I agree with you on both of those statements. Unfortunately that doesn't resolve the thorny issue of whether forced or coerced vaccination can count as political violence, but perhaps this thread will not uncover a unanimously accepted answer to that contentious question.