Medical intervention always comes with risk attached. "Safe" does not mean no risk. For example look up ibuprofen, paracetamol, and the possible side effects it can have for children. For most people vaccination has no ill effects.

There are lots of different vaccines. Is the claim that all of them cause illness? Almost everyone gets vaccinated, but not everyone is autistic. So is the claim that vaccines (or certain vaccines) cause illness in certain people? Why some but not the majority?

There is a small percentage of the population who will have adverse effects of vaccinations I say in the ballpark of .03 to .05 percent. I'm talking about life-threatening reactions, not the mild reactions, temporary fever. Which world is safer, a world where everyone is vaccinated or a world where nobody is? The answer is bloody obvious.

We don’t permit people to defecate in the public water supply. We regulate pollution and other public health hazards. We require certain sanitation standards for people who prepare and serve food. What if somebody says hand washing violates some personal code or religious rule? Point is, the state mandates many public health measures. Nobody is being forced to get vaccines. But if people want to enjoy the benefits of a state provided education, they ought to comply with the basic measures to keep everyone healthy. Just like somebody who cooks your meal needs to wash their hands after using the toilet.

Vaccines are only mandatory if you participate in public. Homeschool should be the preferred education of the antivax crowd, wouldn't want your children taught the science of vaccines anyway, right?

"Yeah but we don't know any kind of chemicals they put into vaccines."

Do you know what's in chicken pox? Measles? Polio? Meningitis? The idea is that you take a preventative measure that will ensure the people you interact with do not get exposed, and in return, those people are also vaccinated, returning the favor. Again, they are only mandatory if you want to be part of the general public. Yet, still a choice. Because mandatory vaccinations don't mean you'll be held down and vaccinated. They mean that if you want the privilege of participating fully in the social contract, you don't get a free pass to expose everyone else to measles and whooping cough based on junk arguments. "My body my choice" does apply to one person. Whereas the choice not to vaccinate doesn't apply to one person. It applies to everyone they come into contact with. It is simply because going unvaccinated risks the lives of people who don’t agree with your choice, and the exemption to every freedom is whatever that thing might be causing harm to others.

Biological infection is a pretty specific reason to limit people's access. There's already rules in place to keep people separate from society when they are sick with infectious diseases. Called quarantine. The rules are pretty logically sound, it's generally seen as a sacrifice of the few for the greater population. It's regrettable, sure, but it must be done so we don't all die from a few people's illness. In this case it's not about "your safety" it's about public safety.

Everyone is a risk of being a carrier of disease. If you willfully do not vaccinate and if it is shown you passed on a disease to others then you should be liable for willfully causing the disease in others. If others die because of your action (or lack) then you should take the burden of blame. When your beliefs end up putting other people's health and even lives at risk, yeah, there's justification there.

"If unvaccinated people are a danger to vaccinated people, doesn't that imply there is a belief that vaccinations don't work that well."

First, they are a danger to infants [who cannot be yet vaccinated] and the elderly [who may have compromised immune systems], and to other antivax crowd, and to other people that are not antivax yet never been infected / vaccinated, i.e you're going to Mecca to do the hajj, there are hundreds of thousand people there, the unvaccinated people are not the one danger to vaccinated people, but to those who unvaccintaed / unprotected / uninfected.

We can always find a middle ground instead of going to extremes. Forcing everyone to vaccinate is horrid, and inhumane. Being totally against vaccination is as bad, and could result in plagues. "No means no" means that a person cannot be penetrated if that person says "no." However, a simple and powerful "no" is meaningless for a person that refuses penetration of a needle when mandatory vaccination is in effect. The only middle ground I am able to see is, i.e. don't go to Mecca to do the hajj, don't go to public schools, don't go to anywhere with mandatory vaccination. Well me, I don't see it as mandatory. It's more like ... you vaccinate yourself and your kids to do the responsible thing. Same thing with staying home or wearing a mask when you're sick.