The constitution works both ways: The state has to ensure personal liberty to everyone but what if a group started to restrict another group's liberties? Which group do you provide liberty for? It's a dilemma: Either those who sacrificed 2 years of their liberty so that scientists could come up with a vaccine, restoring all previous liberties after herd immunity would've been reached, all without causing the deaths millions of vulnerable people. Or those who decide against a vaccine where there is scientific consensus on effectiveness, who cause the infection to spread further and further, without having a scientific/rational reason for the decision, because it's rooted in fear.

Wild take. Not only completely untrue, but also very amusing in its implication that there is overlap between the people preferring a totalitarian Germany and the people who would want compulsory vaccination.