I had a long, long conversation with a radical leftist libertarian a couple weeks ago about whether forced vaccination was ever rationalizable under say the harm principle and he argued that the self-ownership cost of forcing someone to put a chemical in their body outweighed the potential long term benefit to society of blocking diseases, because it's rare that diseases actually return quickly because of vaccination gaps. He was so wrong.
If he really is not interested in what we had until recently considered a baseline for the social contract (you get vaccinated so that you do not put yourself and others at risk for contagion), then he has chosen to opt out of the social contract. That's fine -- but he has to leave the paved part of the world (or at least of North America). You can't have it both ways. If you're going to accept the benefits of Western civ (jobs, money, pre-made housing, cheap food, roads), then you have to accept the entry tariffs. If you've decided this prerequisite is not suitable to you, then you leave. Population density mandates public health controls. I don't feel so liberal when I put it this way, but science trumps hippies.