It's rather curious why you cut off the first part of Jefferson's quote. Since you left it out, I'll happy complete it:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
Why on earth would you have left out a phrase like "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"?
That sounds an awful lot like the rights of others (i.e. society) puts limits on you, as long as it's reasonable.
Public health is a reasonable thing to consider the rights of the public at large over the rights of the individual. If you are choosing to put everyone else at risk, you should not be able to do that consequence free.
There's a major precedent under US law for this sort of thing. Conscription is an example of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the individual, or the right for police or whatnot to commandeer your property in the midst of doing their public duties. Both of those are done for the sake of public safety, one is national defense, the other is law enforcement and is therefore justified.
Public health is just as important as national defense and law enforcement, so it's not hard to justify some form of punishment for not getting your children vaccinated.
"It's rather curious why you cut off the first part of Jefferson's quote."
Oh, no problem: I left it out for brevity's sake, since it had nothing to do with my point.
"Since you left it out, I'll happy complete it:"
By all means: some here may not be familiar with it.
"Why on earth would you have left out a phrase like "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"?"
That's easy, because it doesn't pertain to our discussion.
"That sounds an awful lot like the rights of others (i.e. society) puts limits on you, as long as it's reasonable."
Uh, no sir.
NOT "i.e. society". He was specifically making the point which I made, that each individual has these described rights,
individually. That is evidences by the final part of the quote, which I cited: that any law which limits the rights of the individual are tyrannical. The whole thrust was against laws being implemented
which restrict individual rights. If you read the rest of his letter, and the balance of his writings, this is made quite clear numerous times.
"Conscription is an example of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the individual"
I presume you're referring to the Draft here in the US. And that is a call to national military service in time of war: it was not an infringement on an individual right but rather a call to duty during an attack on the liberties of all men. Not at all the same thing (and I don't even support the Draft, but that doesn't change the fact that it is entirely different). Possibly where you live: not here.
"or the right for police or whatnot to commandeer your property in the midst of doing their public duties."
Uh, sorry again, but that is illegal in most states, here, if not all states. As a former LEO, I can attest to that. Please disregard the movies and TV.
"Public health is just as important as national defense and law enforcement"
Actually, no, it is not, in this country: the laws are much more restrictive in that area on what is allowed, in recognition of this distinction.