I absolutely understand your point, but unfortunately it's kind of a strawman argument (not on purpose) - while the effect of many laws may be to protect the citizenry, "protection" is Constitutionally a federal concern only when it comes to external threats, e.g., from other countries. Domestically, the purpose of these laws is to regulate, and, as much as possible, is left to the states to determine (I feel cynical adding this, but it's worth noting that speed limits, which differ by state, are at least in part determined by actuaries).... this is all correct, but I was not arguing that there is a constitutional right to drive. I was saying that whether through local, state or federal legislature, society has enacted laws to protect itself. In the example I gave it was from drivers without a driving license, but it could also have been from doctors without a medical degree or from electricians without a diploma.
I am not advocating for a law to force people to get vaccinated. I am against forcing anything on anyone.
However, I am advocating for having laws that protect society from unvaccinated people, in the same way that we protect society from drivers without a driving license. Note- these laws do not exist yet, but I would support them.
And if anyone wants to take the analogy one step further: having a driver's license does not guarantee people will not have accidents, but it reduces that risk. Protecting society is a complicated matter. It is not all or nothing. If we are able to reduce the number of accidents, or the number of people that get COVID - we have achieved our goal.
There is no legal difference between forcing an individual to take an affirmative action (such as vaccinate) and enforcing a consequence for not doing so. Not to get into the sordid legal history of requiring a medical procedure "for the public good" (see Buck v Bell , which was never overturned but has been absolutely invalidated due to subsequent case law), but again, this would fail under current case law and Article 14 of the Constitution (see the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo). The closest facts we have here are in the 115-year old case Jacobson v. Massachusetts (which, full disclosure, resulted in a $5 fine for failure to vaccinate against smallpox, and which Buck v. Bell was based on, but even in the 2020 case Justice Gorsuch stated that “Jacobson hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic.”). However, the Courts currently use different methods and priorities for legal analysis, and again as with Buck, subsequent case law requires a different outcome: the government is not in a regulatory position with regard to health care, it's a public policy concern. Further, with regards to AIDS/HIV, there is no concomitant requirement to make one's medical status known, and states such as California and Illinois (those pesky states again!) have decriminalized knowingly spreading the disease to uninfected partners. In the rare instances where vaccinations are required (as in schools), states will allow exemptions, including for both medical reasons and due to personal choice.
Anyway, I know this is waaaaaay off topic, and I'm probably being a huge PITA to even bring this up, but I do see many sides to this matter and I feel that more information is always better. I am not trying to create any conflict, just provide a US legal perspective, again, regardless of my own feelings on the matter.
To get back on topic my son is fine now, thank goodness.