You are taking my comment about the flu vaccination and broadening WAY too much. I could take your position the other way, of course. Lets allow the government to enter your home at will to ensure that you are living your life in a way that will in no way potentially harm others. Strap your kids to a table to get them vaccinated and eat the right foods. Etc.
I think you see just how far I could take it if I desired. The government can incentivize people to do the right thing. I was all for those seat belt commercials back in the 60’s. But making it a law crosses a line.
You could do that, but it would be a characature of my argument. This is an old fallacious technique known as "Straw man."
Around the beginning of the 20th century, there was an outbreak of Typhoid. After much investigation, the government Doctor attempting to control the spread tracked the disease back to a woman named Mary.
She had had the disease, but got over it, and was now perfectly healthy, but for some reason she remained a carrier of the disease. (It is now known that a significant percentage of the population are capable of being carriers.)
They tried to control her, but she resisted all their efforts. They urged her to find employment other than handling food or taking care of children, but she refused to listen.
Many people died as a result of Mary's stubbornness, though she herself never believed she was responsible for any of it.
Now I ask you, did the government have a legitimate reason to confine Typhoid Mary, or should she have been given the sort of "Freedom" that "Conflating Freedom" is always yammering about? The Freedom to spread a horrible disease?