In all seriousness, I'm trying to understand the underlying philosophy here.
For example, I understand the the empathy that many have say, for homelessness or poverty. In that vein, I understand the push for entitlements like Medicaid, UBI, and high minimum wages on the premise that efforts by the government will solve this problem. Much of these government entitlements aren't necessarily rooted in constitution or our government. Much of these philosophies come from other countries because of a distinct difference in constitution and law, and that is fairly simple. T
he United States constitution says that we all have rights given by God ( or natural ) and that the constitution 1. Recognizes certain rights 2. protects certain rights from federal government, and 3. All recognized and unrecognized rights are governed by the State and individual. In most other countries rights are given by the government. Some of this also is the difference in philosophy of negative vs positive rights.
Getting to vaccination mandates and "unvaxxed" fines or confinement, the only way I can wrap my head around this is two fold. First, I think this is similar to gun laws. The left believes that there is a "right to safety" which is provided by the government. No where, federally, does the constitution give the right to safety outside of the military and the ability for the United States to defend itself. The right to safety, assuming it is a natural right, would be relegated to the State or individual. The fundamental issue with the "right to safety" is that this is a positive right. This right would require action by everyone else to provide safety, real or not, to provide that safety. For example, getting rid of the 2A would provide safety (not real, mind you). The problem is that requires the citizenry to give up their their rights. To some degree, states do have the ability to regulate gun ownership.
Fundamentally, the only real right to safety is the right that one can provide their self. Conservatives understand that.
So that's the only way I can wrap my head around this. That the left believe they have a right to safety, when constitutionally, that's never, outside of one's own actions, been a right given to them. Now, we also know that the left believes an individual has a right to something, or feel something even if everyone else's rights are taken and when the rights are taken, that the end result doesn't make them any safer. For example, if all guns are removed, gangs will still be doing drive by's. Will we have less "mass" shootings? Possibly. Will more people get hurt during B and E's because the citizenry can't protect themselves? Possibly. Just like removing all guns, forced vaccinations, fines, or confinement will not guarantee or make everyone safer from this virus.
In many ways for countries in Europe, Canada, and Australia, this makes some sense because, their citizens don't have natural rights. Their citizens overwhelmingly take safety or the guise of safety that is provided by the government because their rights come from the government.
The only other way that these sorts of things make any sense is just power and control.