You consider seat belt laws a violation of your personal freedom?
I wouldn't use the word "violated" but yes, seat belt law decreased the total amount of freedom. If you don't agree to that it means we don't use the same definition of the word "freedom" or the word "law".
Because of that law I am either less free on the seat of my car, or (if I ignore that and I am caught and fined) I am less free about how to to spend my own X dollars (the fine).
I think by rejecting the word "violated" you've materially changed the question, from a one about politics to one about semantics. There are many possible definitions of freedom and high among them is "the ability to do whatever you want". In this sense such laws obviously reduce freedom - as you state, it's a simple matter of definition.
But that's an uninteresting matter of word definitions. The question about "violating" your freedom is about your judgement as to whether it is a good or a bad thing for the law to restrict you in this way. You haven't said anything about that.
Also - and this applies to vaccines too - this definition of "freedom" is an academic one. There should be a competing measure of valuable freedom, defined as how much your freedom helps you to take advantage of the benefits of the world.
We then need to work out why so many people are so fiercely wedded to their Zero-value Freedoms...
Since you write about freedom being rebalanced, it means you recognize it can be increased in one aspect or decreased in another aspect. (However increase never happened in neither of the two parallel universes, only this or that decrease; so the term "rebalancing" doesn't really fit.)
I'm not arguing in favor or against seat belts or constraining any other freedom. I can't help observing it happens.
The context I'm presuming is that governments have to step in when deaths increase, to mandate certain responsibilities that individuals or corporations might otherwise seek to avoid.
So in an increasingly vehicle-centric world, the number of deaths puts a weight on one side of the scales, and we have a number of branches on the other side of the scales. On one branch, we could change the speed limits; on another branch, we could introduce car safety devices; in other branches we could limit the number of cars on the road or increase car death punishments or embed random nails in all the roads to turn them into obstacle courses. Any of these could reduce the number of deaths and rebalance the freedom side.
I'm not saying that freedom necessarily has a balance within itself, but is always balanced against responsibilities. A country without any responsibilities could exist, but probably not for very long. We could set a cap on responsibilities and allow almost-infinite freedoms, but as technology improves and society complexifies, I believe that would have the same end result.
So all that is to say I guess I am in favour of constraining freedoms, proportionate to the new freedoms that naturally come into being. If personal light aircraft become cheap and readily available, such that more in-air collisions occur, I would expect and support the government in restricting the freedoms of where light aircraft can fly and the training required to operate them. If small blocks of uranium started falling from the sky, I would expect and support the government in restricting the freedoms of what people could do with these chunks of uranium far more drastically.
Sometimes - rarely - responsibilities rise on their own. In the current pandemic, it is appropriate for the government to promote and in some cases mandate small impediments to our freedoms. Hopefully these will be short-term, and it is up to us to ensure that the government doesn't use these dark days as an excuse to curtail people's freedoms indefinitely.
Because with all this said, I'm totally against unnecessary forms of tracking, biometric surveillance and other use of new technology to remove freedoms we historically have, especially when the government uses deceptive moral arguments to justify them or paves the way for future immoral regimes.
I definitely don't see face masks or seat belts falling anywhere near that category though.