In Australia government now controls how much alcohol people can consume in their locked down homes. They are searching all bags and things coming into the building.

That is the line now. How far it will go we will see.

This argument is so tired. It applies to almost every single service provided by any government anywhere.

New traffic regulations? Everyone needs transportation to get somewhere. Controlling transport controls everything. This is a road to tyranny, etc, etc..

New worker's regulations? Everyone needs a job in our economy! Controlling wages controls people's lives! This is authoritarianism, etc...

New taxes? Everything you need to survive could be taxed! When does it end?? etc, etc..

The most minor policy change anywhere runs into this utterly inane argument. Updated food standards? Building codes? Public hearing to add a stop sign? When will this government overreach end???

It's tired, it's pointless, it's been said millions of times by the same libertarian/anarchists for a century. It adds nothing new to the conversation.

That line would be drawn through elections, legislation, and court decisions. Decisions like the one OP was referring to [0] where the Supreme Court found that compulsory vaccination is within the state's power, and further that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Well, I'm not exactly sure what the line is. In the US, as with all things related to government power, it's decided jointly through the work of the three branches of government and the factors that influence them - democratic appeal, the constitution, jurisprudence, and so on.

At any rate, "vaccination for a highly infectious, potentially deadly virus" indisputably counts as "health". Everything might be health-based if you want it to be (maybe), but the nature of the American system hopefully and usually minimizes room for abuse of that power - and certainly there's no appearance of abuse of that power here, now.

I mean he answered these questions. The line is drawn here.

"Everything is health based if you want it to be."

What is the point of this comment? He is mandating a vaccine during a pandemic.

Slippery slope arguments are a way of avoiding discussing whether a particular proposal is good, by suggesting that they will lead to other, less positive developments. Better to evaluate each action on its own.

Vaccination requirements have been a standard practice for well over a hundred years now, and the case for mandating a vaccine for Covid-19 is much, much better than the case for mandating many other vaccines that are already required.

This is health-based, clearly, and not just "if you want it to be".

You do have a choice. Take the vaccine if you want to work in the federal government or find another job. The government doesn't owe you or anyone else a job.

Exactly. I'd be tempted to do the same if i were an employer just to increase the average IQ and thinking skills of my workers...

Fyi, the smallpox vaccine isn't as effective as the covid one...

The COVID vaccine is effective at preventing mass ICU occupancy. The smallpox vaccine is exceptionally effective when compared to other vaccines. Most other vaccines require 3-4 applications for reasonable immunity; same as COVID.