No, I don't, and neither is that what Jacobson or the Occupational Safety and Health Act say.
"There was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person," just a monetary penalty [1]. It relied on "the opinion of the Board of Health" finding it was "necessary for the public health or the public safety" to mandate the vaccine. It evaluated how the Board of Health made that decision, and found it was "qualified to make that judgment" and "did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner."
In short, a fact specific, scoped and expert-guided standard that "would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others."
VivaFrei podcast has recently claimed that the Jacobson decision was the sole basis for the Buck v Bell decision, which instituted the eugenics program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
Than its obviously a junk opinion, unless you want to live in a medical apartheid state. Are you seriously suggesting because of this opinion the government has the right to put anything in your body they want, for no matter how low the threshold risk. You want to live under such laws?
I'll ask you a second question. Hypothetically, do you think the government has a right to kill 1% of the people to save a another preferred 1% of the people? Would it matter if it was 2%?