Vaccine mandate ethics debate

Parallel case (not today's prompt): Should motorcycle riders be required by law to wear a helmet, or is that their private choice?\n\nClaim: I support requiring helmets for all motorcycle riders, with no age-based exemption for adults.\n\nEvidence: Helmets reduce the force of a head impact. In a crash the skull can stop suddenly against the pavement, but the brain keeps moving and slams into the inside of the skull. A helmet adds a crushable foam layer that increases the time and distance over which the head decelerates, which lowers the peak force on the brain. Public-health data from states that repealed helmet laws show a measurable rise in rider deaths and severe head injuries after the requirement was dropped, and a return of protection where laws were reinstated.\n\nReasoning: The evidence connects to the claim because a lower peak force on the brain means fewer fatal and disabling head injuries, so a helmet law predictably saves lives. I acknowledge the ethical tradeoff. A mandate limits an adult rider's freedom to accept a risk that mainly affects their own body, which is a real cost to personal autonomy. On the other side, severe injuries pull in emergency responders, hospital resources, and public and insurance costs that the whole community shares, so the choice is not purely private. Weighing the strong safety benefit against the loss of individual choice, I conclude the collective and public-cost gains justify the requirement, though I recognize reasonable people rank autonomy and safety differently.