I suggest you read the post again. There was no relationship between that statement and a vaccine. It was a statement that indicated that there are in fact some legitimate laws. The question then became what is legitimate. I get it, you don't think there is ever any time or any condition where the state can require a particular medical treatment. That's fine. The Supreme Court apparently disagrees (see Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905 ). States are somewhat split on the issue, some with requirements and some forbidding it and some with no laws at all. Childhood vaccinations are enforced by limiting access to public schools.
Can public safety at some point override an individuals rights? In some cases the answer must be yes, otherwise you are not going to have much of a society. Requiring you have brake lights on your car is a public safety measure. Does that interfere with your right to freedom of travel?
Demanding you get a vaccine is pretty damn extreme. There had better be no other options available and the threat would have to be the survival of the country. That's a pretty high bar. Bring back smallpox. I doubt you still have a USA if 35% of the population dies. While a certain number of people would still refuse treatment, my guess is a majority would elect to take a vaccine if available.
We are of course nowhere near that, but that does not invalidate the principal.
