If only more people were rational, and understood how to properly value "small risks with disproportionately large consequences". But there I go touting an ideology, again...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-inertia-trap/201...
Maybe the line needs to be crossed, but denying that line and ridiculing the people who value the line is not helpful. Bodily autonomy/corporeal sovereignty was historically a cornerstone belief for the same people who now want to deny it from others, and that should not be taken lightly.
Interestingly enough, you appear not to identify with the group that has historically supported the right to abortion as a personal decision, have I interpreted that correctly? And you do identify with the group that believes vaccination should be a personal decision?
Helmet law would be a better comparison. The argument for requiring a seat belt isn't about protecting people from their own choices. It's because it's very easy to lose control when things get exciting if you're not belted into the seat. Now you're throwing around a two ton projectile and everyone else's lives are at risk.
This can't be the complete argument, because then it would only apply to drivers. If you're not wearing a seat belt and you're in an accident, you might become a projectile which can cause harm to others in the same vehicle.
If some person starts to link their identity to not believing in the vaccines, belittling them is not likely to help.
If it hadn't been made political, I would buy your comparison to seatbelts and drunk driving, but as it is, I think it is more comparable to putting a ban on male circumcision.
(Also, for the record, I think both sides of US politics has their own areas where they ignore evidence in favour of what is "correct" thinking for their side.)
Within each side, there is hiding a position that genuinely cares about other people. But on both sides, the way it is pursued is very often to just try to run over the other side.
A good test of the rule is how well it compares to the situation you want to apply it to. In the case you presented ( 'vaccines' ), for example, there is conscious effort to cast people, who refuse to be vaccinated as subhuman that have no rights in the face of this overwhelming threat.
On the other hand, unvaccinated attempt to portray the 'opposing side' as 'sheeple' riding on pre-existing anti-government strain prevalent in US mainstream.
It does not make the quote less insightful. It just shows that humans instinctively gather into tribes. It used to be the tribes were limited geographically, but this has not been the case for a while.
TLDR; Granny ( and Pratchett ) was not wrong when those words were written. It starts there.
At best, this is misplacement of blame. The only people placing others in jeopardy are those not getting vaccinated. The rest of us are not responsible just because we didn't tie those people down and inject them. That doesn't mean the rest of us should do nothing about the problem, but neither does it mean that a vaccine mandate is necessarily the appropriate solution.
You will often see such justifications of actions: 1. We are responsible for X. 2. Our solution solves the problem of X. 3. Therefore, our solution must be implemented regardless of your objections.
The problem being (1) may or may not be true; (2) is usually true; but (3) does not follow, because their solution to the problem of X is not the only solution, even if it is their preferred solution because of politics, economy, expediency, convenience, et cetera.
But then I think of an example like vaccine mandates and immediately an area opens up for varied interpretation.
One side would say a mandate (or "public health policy" more generally) treats people as a corporate body of "things" seeking to maximize their lifespan while ignoring their free will and volition.
The other side would say without such a mandate we are unnecessarily harming real people, who would otherwise be railroaded by the irresponsible actions of another.